Happiness, Work Engagement, and Perception of Organizational Support of Student
Affairs Professionals
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
The Patton College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Michele Sheets Hempfling
December 2015
© 2015 Michele Sheets Hempfling. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled
Happiness, Work Engagement and Perception of Organizational Support of Student
Affairs Professionals
by
MICHELE SHEETS HEMPFLING
has been approved for
the Department of Counseling and Higher Education
and The Patton College of Education by
Peter C. Mather
Associate Professor of Counseling and Higher Education
Renée A. Middleton
Dean, The Patton College of Education 3 Abstract
SHEETS HEMPFLING, MICHELE, Ph.D., December 2015, Higher Education.
Happiness, Work Engagement and Perception of Organizational Support of Student
Affairs Professionals
Director of Dissertation: Peter C. Mather
Little research has been conducted on the work engagement, subjective happiness, or perceived organizational support of student affairs professionals. In this study, 299 professionals in the American College Personnel Association were surveyed utilizing the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the Survey of
Perceived Organizational Support. Student affairs professionals were found to be moderately engaged, have a moderate level of happiness, and have a neutral level of pereceived organizational support. Student affairs professionals with perceived level of organizational support and happiness are more engaged. In addition, participants with higher levels of engagement are more likely to intend to stay in the field of student affairs. There were no significant differences in engagement, subjective happiness, and perceived organizational support found in regard to gender, functional area, institution type, and number of years in current position. Significant differences were found in regards to years in student affairs. Those with more years in student affairs showed higher levels of engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support. More research needs to be conducted in this area but these findings add to the literature on overall employee wellbeing and employee engagement. Furthermore, this study provides insight into the work experience of student affairs professionals in respect to years of experience, functional area, and institution type. 4 Dedication
This is dedicated to a woman who demonstrated unconditional support, contagious happiness, and engaged with everyone she met, my grandmother Teruko “Thelma”
Riggs. When I grow up, I want to be just like her.
5 Acknowledgements
It is virtually impossible to thank every person who has been a part of this journey for me. I would like to thank every student that I worked with and staff member that I supervised since I began this journey. Each of you, at some point, reminded me to finish this journey and gave an encouraging smile. To my friends and family, it is impossible to acknowledge you all individually, but you know who you are and I am grateful. There are some people who need to be acknowledged individually. Dr. Mather, you have been patient and kind beyond words. I am thankful for your insight and intellect. Dr. Brooks,
Dr. Horton, and Dr. Tucker who served on my committee, thank you for not giving up on me and helping me realize the potential of my work. My supervisors during this journey,
Sue and Joe. Sue, I never would have started this journey without your confidence in me.
You are a true super woman. Joe, your unwavering support and desire for me to finish was just what I needed. To my current staff, thank you for all the love and grace these last few months. Oscar, thank you for your patient and brilliant mind. Nicole, thank you for never giving up on me and supporting me in ways you will never know. I am forever grateful. Jacky, who is my role model for compassion and kindness, thank you for never losing faith in your big sister. I am thankful every day that I have you as a sister. To my parents, Jack and Sherri, who have supported their children to pursue their educational dreams. I am humbled by your love, support and unconditional confidence you have in me and my siblings. And last but never least, Chris. Thank you for being my cheerleader when I needed it most. I am thankful you are with me to see the end of this journey and are with me for this journey called life. You are my heart and I know all things are possible with you. 6 Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ...... 3 Dedication…………...…………………………………………………………………….4 Acknowledgements ...... 5 List of Tables ...... 8 List of Figures ...... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 11 Work and Well-Being ...... 11 The Work of Student Affairs ...... 12 Statement of the Problem ...... 14 Purpose of the Study ...... 15 Research Questions ...... 16 Significance of the Study ...... 17 Delimitations ...... 17 Limitations ...... 18 Definition of Terms...... 19 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...... 20 Positive Psychology ...... 20 Happiness and Flow at Work ...... 26 Broaden and Build Within Organizations....………………...... 32 Utrecht Work Engagement Scale ...... 35 Perceived Organizational Support ...... 39 Student Affairs Work ...... 41 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..45
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 47 Research Questions ...... 47 Research Design...... 49 Population and Sample ...... 49 7 Instrumentation ...... 50 Data Collection Procedures ...... 53 Data Analysis ...... 53 Summary ...... 55 Chapter 4: Results ...... 56 Survey Population and Response Rate ...... 56 Summaries of Demographic Information of the Sample ...... 56 Results and Analysis ...... 59 Summary ...... 79 Chapter 5: Summary ...... 82 Discussion ...... 83 Practical Implications...... 91 Future Research ...... 93 Conclusion ...... 95 References ...... 97 Appendix A: Participant Cover Letter ...... 113 Appendix B: Survey ...... 114 Appendix C: Scatterplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support…………………………………………………………………118 Appendix D: Histogram of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support………………………………………………………………....119 Appendix E: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support by Gender…………………………………………………………………..…120 Appendix F: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support by Age………………………………………………………………….…..…121 Appendix G: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support by Number of Years in Current Position……….…………………………..…122 Appendix H: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement & Organizational Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs…..………………………………..…123
8 List of Tables
Page
1. Summaries of Demographic Information (n = 299) ...... 58 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (n = 299) ...... 59 3. Descriptive Statistics by Variables by Gender………………………………………...61
4. Descriptive Statistics by Variables by Number of Years in Current Position…….…..61
5. Descriptive Statistics by Variables by Number of Years in Student Affairs…...……..62
6. Pearson’s Correlation Results of Correlation of Study Variables ...... 64 7. ANOVA Results of Relationship of Work Engagement and Intent to Stay in the Student Affairs Profession ...... 66 8. Descriptive Statistics of Work Engagement by Groupings of Intent to Stay in the Student Affairs Profession ...... 67 9. Homogeneity of Variances of of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Gender ...... 68 10. ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Gender ...... 69 11. Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Groupings of Number of Years in Current Position ...... 70 12. ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Number of Years in Current Position ...... 70 13. Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Groupings of Number of Years in Current Position ...... 71 14. ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs ...... 73 15. Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs ...... 74 16. Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Groupings of Number of Years in Student Affairs ...... 75 17. ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Functional Area……….……………………………………………………..77
18. Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Functional Areas ...... 77 9 19. ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Type of Institution…….……………………………………………………..78
20. Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational Support by Type of Institution ...... 78 21. Comparison of Work Engagement...... 83
10
List of Figures
Page 1. Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (UWES) construct……………………………….38
11 Chapter 1: Introduction
Well-being in the workplace is, in part, a function of helping employees do what
is naturally right for them by freeing them up to do so—through behaviors that
influence employee engagement and therefore that increase the frequency of
positive emotions (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003, p. 219).
Work and Well-Being
Happiness and well-being at work have garnered increased interest in scholarly and popular literature over the past few years (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Gallup,
2007; Lyubomirsky, 2007). This is no surprise due to the impact that work can have on well-being. Work is a place where an individual engages in a host of important dimensions of life, such as developing identity, engaging in challenges, and developing social relationships (Kanungo, 1982). Traditionally, researchers and consultants have focused on remediating workplace problems by focusing on what is not working.
Recently, however, increased attention has been given to understanding what is going right with organizations and employees in order to enhance performance (Cameron,
Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). The use of an “appreciative lens” in examining individuals’ work experience is closely connected to the burgeoning field of positive psychology. This branch of psychology focuses on the study of positive emotions and personal strengths, and runs counter to the field’s traditional emphasis on diagnosing and treating mental illness (Seligman, 1998). The field of positive psychology rests on the supposition that it is possible to live a life that is happier, more satisfied, and more meaningful regardless of one’s circumstances. 12 In respect to work life, positive psychologists examine both the well-being of individual employees and positive organizational environments. That is, organizations have emotional lives that run the spectrum from spiritless to flourishing. Cameron et al.
(2003) provided substantial evidence that positive environments are also productive environments. Furthermore, there is ample support for the notion that employees who are happier are also more productive than their unhappy peers (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997;
Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Fredrickson, 2003; Seligman, 2002). In this study, I seek to examine the ideas of work engagement, happiness, and organizational support in the context of a particular professional field—student affairs administration.
The Work of Student Affairs
Since its inception, American higher education has been concerned with issues beyond experiences in the classroom. Early colonial colleges, in fact, held character issues to be of utmost importance (Rudolf, 1962, 1990). As higher education saw a larger and increasingly diverse group of students and faculty, particularly at research universities, faculty become less involved in the out-of-class experience of students. With this, student affairs administration grew as a professional unit. Historically, there has been a critical eye pointed to student affairs professionals and their purpose. In 1937, The
Student Personnel Point of View was drafted, acknowledging “the student as a whole person” (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, n.d.). The document includes the elements of a student personnel program and the administrative work and comments, specifically that development of positive relationships in work is important.
The reach of student affairs is evidenced by its expansion into several different units, 13 including new student orientation, housing, judiciaries, health promotions, career services, student activities, multicultural affairs, international student services, and more.
In 1996, Ernest Boyer (1996) spoke of the need for higher education to engage its students. The institutions of higher education should not simply credential students but engage them in the collegiate community. Student affairs professionals are key players in meeting this goal. They serve the students and provide opportunities to develop life skills.
In an article titled, “Educating the Whole Student: The Growing Academic Importance of
Student Affairs,” Arthur Sandeen (2004) declared, “In the decade ahead, student affairs staff should be expected to contribute significantly to broadened student learning experiences on their campuses” (p. 31). The theme of student affairs’ connection to the learning mission of colleges and universities is reflected throughout higher education literature (American College Personnel Association, n.d; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, &
Associates, 1991; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006). With the prominence of student affairs units, both in terms of administrative size and their connection to the central mission of higher education, it is important to understand the conditions to nurture the effectiveness of its professionals. More specifically, it is important to understand the personal and organizational factors that contribute to the effectiveness and well-being of student affairs staff members as they attempt to meet the needs of students in their charge. To date there has been no research on happiness, engagement, and perceived organizational support of student affairs professionals.
Research on employee satisfaction. Considerable research has been conducted across varied organizations on the satisfaction of employees in a variety of work settings.
These studies have focused on two areas: (a) enhancing productivity or organizational 14 goals and (b) the personal and professional development or success of the employee.
Ultimately what appears to matter to both organizational success and employee well- being is putting the employee or people first (Pfeffer, 1998). These two areas have been studied separately but positive psychology research lends support to the notion that the areas are linked together. Other research indicates that businesses where employees have a high level of well-being or happiness are more likely to report higher levels of customer satisfaction, better productivity, and higher employee retention (Harter & Schmidt, 2000;
Keyes, Hysom, & Lupo, 2000). “Within an organization, micro-changes in positive meanings, positive emotions, and positive relationships can ripple through an entire system to produce macro-effects at the collective level” (Fredrickson & Dutton, 2008, p.
1). Research conducted by Barbara Fredrickson (1998, 2001) supports the notion that a positive work environment allows an individual to broaden and build on his or her intellectual and social repertoire as it allows the worker to feel comfortable and engage in positive work behaviors like creativity and appropriately pushing boundaries.
Research supports the idea that engagement in work has an impact on the level of well-being and happiness an employee may experience. Blessing White (2008) found that about 80% of employees are not engaged; therefore, they are not bringing their best efforts. The engagement of an employee can be influenced by many elements but the perceived organizational support may play a major role.
Statement of the Problem
Creating organizational support can lead to high levels of work engagement, resulting in better productivity, strong customer service, and meaningful work (Harter &
Schmidt, 2000; Keyes, Hysom, & Lupo, 2000; Fredrickson & Dutton, 2008) for 15 employees. Researching the perceived organizational support, work engagement, and happiness of student affairs professionals is an important step to creating tools for institutions to develop better and more engaged work places that ultimately benefit students. This research will also examine work engagement and its impact on the intent to stay in the student affairs profession.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which student affairs professionals’ perceived level of organizational support and happiness relate to their engagement at work. Factors included in the study are whether there is a significant difference between different higher education institutions and the level of perceived organization support. It also determined whether a relationship was found between the levels of happiness, work engagement, and perceived organizational support. Previous research has drawn connections among work engagement, well-being, and employee productivity. Gaining an understanding of the relationship among these variables for student affairs professionals and, in particular, how engagement may relate to perceived organizational support and happiness, can inform employee interventions including leadership and supervisory approaches. While some related research has been conducted in other industries and environments, the connection among these variables has not been investigated for student affairs professionals. This study will research the happiness and work engagement of student affairs professional while considering the effect of their work environment. 16 Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to explore the relationship between work and the student affairs profession:
1. To what extent are student affairs professionals engaged as measured by the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)?
2. To what extent are student affairs professionals happy as measured by the
Subjective Happiness Scale?
3. What is the perceived level of organizational support for student affairs
professionals as measured by the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support
(SPOS)?
4. What is the relationship between the perceived level of organizational support and
work engagement?
5. What is the relationship between student affairs professionals’ happiness and
work engagement?
6. To what extent does the perceived level of organizational support contribute to
happiness and engagement?
7. What is the relationship between the level of student affairs professionals’ work
engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for new
professionals?
8. Does the level of engagement as measured by the UWES, the level of happiness
as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the perceived level of
organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by the SPOS 17 differ by gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs,
functional area, and institution type?
Significance of the Study
This study is important to the student affairs profession. In a profession where long hours, modest pay, and a workaholic culture are the norm (Hirt, 2006), a supportive organization and engaged staff are vital. Student affairs professionals play an integral role in the learning and development of college students (Boyer, 1996). Deep engagement and organizational support can produce a more effective environment for student learning.
The job responsibilities of student affairs professionals often include working with and mentoring young adults. Creating a work environment that promotes wellness and support is essential. As mentioned in The Student Personnel Point of View (1937), the development of positive relationships is important. Information gained in this study will provide guidance to professionals and foster engaging work environments. This will be the first documented research on the happiness, perceived organizational support, and engagement of student affairs professionals utilizing the Survey of Perceived
Organizational Support, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and the Subjective
Happiness Scale.
Delimitations
The major delimitation of this study is the use of the American College Personnel
Association (ACPA) membership database, as this does not include all student affairs administrators in the United States, which leaves some institutions underrepresented due to the accessible population. 18 ACPA, founded in 1924 by May L. Cheney, has nearly 7,500 members
representing 1,200 private and public institutions from across the U.S. and around
the world. ACPA members include graduate and undergraduate students enrolled
in student affairs/higher education administration programs, faculty, and student
affairs educators, from entry level to senior student affairs officers, and
organizations and companies that are engaged in the campus marketplace
(American College Personnel Association, n.d.).
ACPA was used because the organization has access to a membership database of student affairs professionals and allows members to apply for research opportunities to survey those members. This was a convenient method to contact student affairs professionals. The study only looks at student affairs professionals. This study only looks at the factor of engagement through the lens of vigor, dedication and absorption. This is a cross-sectional single time survey.
Limitations
There are a few limitations within this study. There are a variety of factors that can be argued to contribute to engagement, such as individual strengths. This study does not include individual personality traits. It is possible that professionals in a professional organization are more likely to be in engaged. This study only accounts for those who completed the survey. There was not a method to include non-respondents. This study did not question professionals about the level of support or satisfaction with their current supervisor. This may be a mitigating factor for some with regard to work engagement, organizational support, and happiness. There is likely to be relevant personal characteristics that are unaccounted for in the research. The definitions of happiness and 19 well-being are concepts that can be measured but are also interpreted by the individual and self-reported.
Definition of Terms
Engagement: “A positive, enriching state of mind, which includes the
characteristics of vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova,
Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 202, p.74).
Happiness: “Happiness or subjective well-being relates to how individuals
evaluate their lives and matters of importance; this includes life satisfaction. This
is the presence of positive affect and the low incidence of negative affect” (Deci
& Ryan, 2008; Diener & Biwas-Diener, 2008).
Perceived Organizational Support: “The degree to which employees believe that
their organization values their contributions and care about their well-being”
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002; Shore & Shore, 1995).
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS): The scientific study of POS seeks to
understand positive states with a focus on positive processes that occur in
organizations (Cameron et al., 2003).
Young Professionals: Student affairs administrators that identify as being in the
field for 5 years or less.
20 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Employee well-being is a matter of significant interest, in part because of the amount of time people spend at work. In addition, th ere are indications that happy employees are more engaged and are more productive (Gallup, 2007). While, historically, these studies have fallen under the rubric of “employee satisfaction,” attention has turned to different dimensions of employees’ well-being. Recently, much of this research has been captured in Positive Organizational Scholarship, a subset of the burgeoning field of
Positive Psychology (Cameron et al., 2003).
Positive Psychology
The Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania (Seligman,
2002) believes that there are three foundations of positive psychology: positive experiences, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. Studies of positive experiences focus on being content with the past, having a sense of happiness in the present, and holding hope for the future, while the study of positive individual traits centers on individual strengths and virtues. Studying positive institutions broadens this view and looks at the strengths that foster a better community such as civility and work ethic. Studying positive institutions has received considerable attention and is commonly referred to as positive organizational scholarship (POS). The scientific study of POS seeks to understand positive states with a focus on positive processes that occur in organizations (Cameron et al., 2003).
Positive psychology has recently been applied to work settings, as most people spend a significant percentage of their lives at work. From this perspective, organizations attempt to create systems that enhance human potential and work engagement (Cameron 21 et al., 2003). On average, Americans spend 7.6 hours (United States Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009) a day at work, leaving it as the place we spend most of our waking hours. Work is highly valued and for some is the defining characteristic of life. For that reason alone, enhancing one’s well-being at work could provide a boost to one’s overall sense of well-being. Furthermore, Fredrickson (2003) points out that positive emotions broaden the mental repertoire and lead to more creativity, thus suggesting that employees who are happier are also more productive.
Definitions of happiness. The Dalai Lama wrote that the very purpose of life was to find happiness (Dalai Lama & Cutler, 2003). The study of well-being traditionally falls into two categories: hedonistic and eudaimonic. Hedonistic happiness focuses on the study of the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect. Eudaimonic happiness refers to living life in a full and deeply satisfying way, and is consistent with
Aristotle’s view of well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Martin Seligman (2002), like
Aristotle, is intrigued by happiness and has spent his professional career studying it.
Seligman (2002), the founder of contemporary positive psychology, identified three components to or varieties of happiness: pleasure, engagement, and meaning.
Pleasure involves little to no thinking and simply corresponds to the things that make us smile or elicit an emotional experience. Engagement takes more time, requires engagement of one’s strengths and results in a sense of gratification, as opposed to pleasure. There are shortcuts to pleasure but none to gratification or engagement
(Seligman, 2002). Gratification is derived from immersing oneself in activities. The activity absorbs the individual’s attention, for example, rock climbing, completing a challenging task, or reading a good book. Particular activities that foster gratification vary 22 from person to person, based on individual strengths (Seligman, 2002). According to
Seligman, the meaningful life is derived from using one’s strengths to serve some larger purpose. Using one’s strength to mentor a troubled teen or assist a community agency in raising funds are examples of meaningful activities for some individuals. Seligman found that although pleasure does give one instant positive emotions, engagement and meaning are more sustained and important to one’s well-being.
Diener and Biwas-Diener (2008) referred to happiness as subjective well-being.
Subjective well-being relates to individuals’ evaluations of their lives, particularly in regard to what is important to them; this includes life satisfaction. Within the field of positive psychology, subjective well-being, sometimes referred to as psychological well- being, is the most common way to measure individuals’ level of happiness. Diener and
Biwas-Diener (2008) also proposed that happiness is “more of a process than an emotional destination” and that it serves a function for psychological wealth. Happy people tend to help others, be cooperative, and, when happy at work, are better workers
(Diener & Biwas-Diener, 2008).
Subjective well-being. The term itself, “subjective well-being,” suggests that an evaluation of well-being is subjective to each individual. Subjective well-being is typically associated with the hedonistic approach to happiness/well-being as the eudaimonic perspective is not merely about positive or negative affect but about fulfilling one’s true potential (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Many researchers believe that it is difficult to separate hedonistic and eudaimonic approaches entirely when examining well-being and that the phenomena overlap. Diener and Biwas-Diener (2008) created a formula to describe subjective well-being: 23 Subjective well-being = positive affect – negative affect + life satisfaction + flourishing.
The theoretical formula takes into account not only the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (i.e., hedonic elements) but life satisfaction and flourishing (i.e., eudaimonic elements). Whereas traditional psychology has focused on bringing individuals to normative functioning, positive psychology’s focus on flourishing puts the focus on optimal human functioning (Keyes, 2002), which is related to
Seligman’s (2002) notion of engagement. This formula sheds some light on the connection between subjective well-being and engagement.
Clifton and Rath (2004) speculated that the happiness of an individual can be predicted by the number of positive emotions that are experienced by that individual.
They described this metaphorically as a “bucket” that needs to be filled with positive experiences. In order to be functioning optimally, Fredrickson and Losada (2005) found that ratio of positive to negative affect must be at or above 2.9. This work was supported by Losada in 1999 with studies done with business teams and by Gottman in 1994 with married couples. When in a flourishing or optimal state, one can reach high levels of growth, goodness, generativity, and resilience.
Sources of happiness. Seligman (2002), with influence from Lyubomisky,
Sheldon, and Schkade (2005), described sources of happiness in the following theoretical formula: enduring level of happiness = set range + circumstances + voluntary control
(H=S+C+V). Set range refers to an individual’s genetic make up for happiness, the level of happiness with which we are born. Circumstances that may increase our level of happiness for a short time include marriage, money, power, or religion. Voluntary control includes variables that an individual can engage in that may affect their level of 24 happiness. Voluntary activities include psychological mindsets such as learning to forgive or being optimistic.
Lyubomirsky (2007) thoroughly researched the relationship between particular activities and happiness. She wrote that 40% of our happiness is within our ability to alter. Lyubomisky et al. (2005) determined that if happiness was explained in a pie chart,
10% would be identified by our circumstances such as if we are married, rich or beautiful, 50% would be our genetic makeup (set point) for happiness and the remaining
40% is our behavior or intentional activity. This theory makes it possible to believe that happiness is an individual’s responsibility since 40% is behavior or intentional activity.
It may seem instinctual to change one’s life circumstances to increase the level of happiness but recent research shows that these changes have short-term benefit due to hedonic adaptation (Lyubomirsky, 2007). That is, life circumstances such as a job change or marriage may increase a happiness level for a short period of time but eventually the individual will adapt and resort to a previous level of happiness (Lyubomirsky, 2007).
Why does hedonic adaption occur? Lyubomirsky (2007) believed the two biggest reasons are rising aspirations and social comparisons. Individuals typically want more and want to keep up with the neighbors (Lyubomirsky, 2007). Ultimately, individuals will default back to their happiness set point, a characteristic potential for happiness throughout our lives. No research at this point leads us to believe that this set point can be changed. Early work conducted by Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman (1978) focused on reports of boosts of individuals’ happiness after significant events such as winning the lottery. They found that individuals do in fact experience happiness for a short period of time then return to their original level. This is an example of the adaption theory. Headey and 25 Wearing (1989) proposed a model of dynamic equilibrium of subjective well-being. This model stated that individuals have a normal equilibrium level of subjective well-being that can be predicted by personality traits. Their theory relied heavily on the adaption theory.
Subjective happiness scale. The Subjective Happiness Scale was developed by
Sonja Lyubomirsky and Heidi Lepper in 1997 to measure global subjective happiness.
These researchers felt the need for a measure that assesses whether one is happy or unhappy. This short, 4-item scale was developed to meet this need. This scale originally had 13 items but was decreased to four due to semantic similarity and three items not loading onto a single interpretable factor in a principle component analysis. The development of this measurement included 2,732 participants through 14 studies. The
Subjective Happiness Scale was tested using Cronbach’s alpha reliability with results ranging from 0.79 to 0.94 (M = 0.86). The test-retest reliability ranged from 0.55 to 0.90
(M = 72). Convergent validity was assessed in two different ways: With published measures of happiness and well-being and dispositional constructs with happiness associated theoretically and empirically. The former showed correlational ranges of 0.52 to 0.72 (M = 0.62) while the latter revealed a range of 0.36 to 0.60 (M = 0.51). Overall, the Subjective Happiness Scale has good psychometric qualities (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999).
The Scale asks 4 questions about how happy respondents consider themselves in general and also in comparison to others. The questions can be found in Appendix B as part of the survey. There are other measurements that explore happiness. The Affect
Balance Scale assesses the experience of positive or negative affect over the past 4 weeks 26 (Bradburn, 1969) and is similar to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al.,
1985) that lists different emotions and respondents’ state when they have felt this way during a given time frame. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) lists negative and positive affect and allows the individual to mark the appropriate answer as to how he or she feels right now.
Happiness and Flow at Work
Csikszentmihalyi (1997) described the experience of flow as “one that many people have used to describe the sense of effortless action they feel in moments that stand out as the best in their lives” (p. 29). An individual is so engrossed or engaged in an activity, time seems endless. There is an almost perfect match between challenge and skills. Bakker (2005) found that organizational resources can play an important role in the ability for employees to feel flow in the work place. A high level of autonomy, social support, supervisory coaching, and feedback found teachers experiencing flow at work and Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke (2004) also found that these resources contribute to work engagement. This is not surprising as flow has been described as “intense engagement” (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). LeFevre (1988) found a positive correlation between the time spent in flow and the experience of positive affect. Flow is similar to a form of eudaimonic well-being. Having adequate work support is integral to the opportunity to experience flow.
Lyubomirsky (2008) wrote an opinion column titled “Work may hold the key to your happiness.” In this article, she spoke of her surprise that work had a larger influence over happiness than social connections. The catch is that this includes work that is fulfilling and successful to the individual. She also mentioned earlier work that noted 27 individuals who lost their employment saw their well-being decrease. Boehm and
Lyubomirsky (2008) studied evidence from multiple studies to support that positive affect can promote career success. Lyubomirsky’s theory of upward spirals, to be discussed later, supports her surprising find.
Factors that contribute to work happiness. Warr (2007) examined happiness at work, and proposed a nine factor list of happiness correlates: opportunity for personal control, opportunity for skill use, externally generated goals, variety, environmental clarity, contact with others, availability of money, physical security, and valued social position. Warr (2007) explained the nonlinear relationship between these factors and happiness, but Stairs and Galpin (2009) asserted this list is a great place to start in an effort to increase positive engagement. Starritt and Klein (2004) found that the needs and expectations of employees can be found within three areas: (a ) camaraderie (achieving a sense of community and belonging; having warm, interesting, and co-operative relations with others), (b) achievement (receiving recognition for accomplishments and taking pride in them; doing things that matter and being enabled to do them well), and (c) equity
(being treated justly in relation to the basic conditions of employment). Jahoda (1982) noted that work supplies five factors central to well-being: Time structure, social context, collective purpose, social identity/status, and regular activity. Even with a supportive work context, there are employees who are not engaged and vice versa, those who are engaged but are in a less than good work context. Much of this variance can be narrowed down to personal choices such as moving jobs, changing perspective or simply focusing on the positive. This perspective is exactly what the Dalai Lama spoke when he stated
“happiness is determined more by the state of one’s mind than by one’s external 28 conditions, circumstances or events” (Dalai Lama & Cutler, 2003, p. 6 ) An employee’s perception of a situation can have more impact than the working context.
Lack of engagement costs organizations in terms of low employee retention, absences and low productivity (Gallup, 2007). The time spent to hire and train a new person with loss of productivity can cost an organization a vast amount of time and money (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010). Determining how to keep employees engaged can be vital not only to the financial health but culture of an institution.
Employee engagement. Seligman (2002) contended that engagement of one’s strengths is more important to an individual’s sustained well-being than is pleasure.
Similarly, William Kahn (1990) defined work engagement as the “the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles” (p. 694). Research has been conducted on employee engagement and its impact on employee happiness. A recent study suggested that 19% of employees are highly engaged in their work while another
19% are not engaged, leaving a large portion in the middle that are neither highly engaged or not engaged (Truss et al., 2006). This study’s most concerning result was that those surveyed under 35 years of age had significantly lower engagement than those over
35. This finding could have a significant impact on the future work force.
Stairs and Galpin (2009, p. 165-166) offered the following formula for employee engagement:
“Positive Engagement = Work Context + Engagency + Individual Thoughts &
Actions”
They suggested that the components of the happiness formula are the same core factors that contribute to positive engagement: a combination of environmental factors as 29 well as personal, voluntary choices (i.e., individual thoughts and actions) that contribute to positive engagement. Engagency is the employee’s predisposition to be engaged; this is similar to Lyubomirsky’s conception of a happiness set point. The variables positive engagement, work context, and individual’s thoughts and actions could also be viewed as internal and external factors. Not much research has been conducted to specifically look at engagement in regards to external and internal drivers of positive engagement. Again, according to the formula created by Lyubomirsky (2007) only 10% of happiness of well- being is accounted for by the external drivers such as work context. Although this is a small amount, it is still worthy of attention. It is also worth noting as these are factors to which an organization has control. Changes to an organization also impact a large population so it is worthwhile to create a positive working context.
Employment engagement research. For over 30 years, the Gallup organization has embraced an appreciative orientation to understanding effectiveness in a range of contexts, including organizational, employee, and student success. Gallup researchers have spent years investigating employee performance and success. There exists a variety of definitions for employee engagement but Harter and Blacksmith (2010) get at the heart of the issue:
Employees can become engaged when they find meaning in their work, feel safe
to do good work, and can then transfer their energy into performance. Engaged
employees are both cognitively and emotionally connected to their work and work
place. Employees become involved in their work when their basic needs (such as
knowing what is expected of them and having the right materials and equipment
to do their job) are met consistently, and when they have a chance to make an 30 individual contribution. In addition to the fulfillment that comes from being in the
right job and getting recognized for good work, employees that feel connected to
their coworkers and the larger organization, and those who can clearly see their
future in their work, have high levels of enthusiasm, or positive emotional energy.
Engaged employees use their discretionary effort to help their organization
improve through higher productivity, greater efficiency and innovation, and more
meaningful customer impact, leading to higher profitability (pp. 122-123).
Bakker (2008) found that engaged employees perform better than their unengaged counterparts as they are more likely to experience positive emotions and better physical health while creating their own job and personal resources. In addition, the emotions of others can have an impact on a team; this phenomenon is known as emotional contagion.
A laboratory study was conducted to examine the transfer of moods and its impact on performance. When participants were shown a video of an individual in a pleasant mood and then asked to do a simulated managerial exercise, the positive mood resulted in higher degrees of collegiality and improved task performance (Barsade, 2002). Sy, Cote, and Saavedra (2005) also found that positive or negative moods of team leaders translated into the levels of positive or negative emotions of the group.
A meta-analysis conducted by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) found that employee engagement was the highest predictor of the performance-related variance by the overall satisfaction measure. Research by Gallup (2007) indicated that engaged employees lead to more productivity and profitability, create stronger customer relationships, and retain their employment. Gallup al so asked participants to list the single most important factor in maintaining a sense of comfort and well-being at work. 31 There was a variety of responses but the common theme was communication and interpersonal dynamics among workers.
There have been numerous studies conducted with professionals to demonstrate the importance of engagement to successful employment. South African police officers who were determined to be engaged were problem-focused and would take active steps to remove stressors while engaged. Dutch technicians believed they were able to face a broad variety of challenges (Rothman & Storm 2003; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti
& Schaufeli, 2007). In 2006, Bakker, Gierveld, and Van Rijswijk found that engagement had an impact on school principals and teachers. A positive relationship was found between the principals’ work engagement scores and the rating of their performance by the teachers. Principals with high levels of engagement were better able to solve problems and seen as transformational leaders by their peers.
Harter et al. (2002) simply defined engagement as the involvement with and enthusiasm for work. Mere (2005) stated that it was engagement that determined whether an employee would go above and beyond job responsibilities for organizational success; hence all organizations should strive for this. Kahn (1990) looked at the continuum of personal engagement to personal disengagement and studies work roles, performance and personal identity. He believed that when engaged, “people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and mentally during role performances” (p. 694). It is assumed that engagement will produce positive emotions. Previous studies have shown that work engagement is enhanced by such variables as social support, performance feedback, autonomy, and opportunities to vary skill (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). 32 Stairs and Galpin (2009) developed a model of positive engagement that broadly reflects the three pathways to happiness described by Seligman (2003). There are external drivers that impact enjoyment, challenge, and meaning to produce outcomes. The enjoyment aspect of the model is simply the degree to which an employee enjoys their work and experiences positive emotions. The earlier discussions with regard to
Fredrickson’s work demonstrate the impact of positive emotions on productivity, creativity, and success. Challenge refers to the degree those employees feel stretched and continue to be developed by their work. Also within the challenge aspect is the idea of absorption and “flow.” The aspect of meaning in the model of positive engagement is the degree to which an employee finds meaning and believes they are serving something bigger than themselves. This aspect looks to the research done by Wrzesniewski (2003).
Broaden and Build Within Organizations
Engaged employees are more energetic and simply enjoy their work. Individuals spend much of their adult life in the work place and there are a host of reasons why employers might be interested in the well-being of their employees. A sense of well- being fosters creativity (Fredrickson, 2003) and other forms of productivity. A healthy work place would include the presence of positive feelings which result in happiness.
“Positive organizational scholarship seeks to understand the dynamics within organizations that produce extraordinary outcomes both for the organizations and for their individual members” (Fredrickson, 2003, p. 163). Positive organizational scholarship takes the concept of positive psychology and looks at it through the lens of an organization taking into account an individual’s strength. 33 Past research shows that employees who experience a greater amount of positive emotions over negative emotions exhibit higher performance (Wright & Cropanzano,
2000; Wright & Staw, 1999). More satisfied employees are more cooperative, more helpful to others, time efficient and retain the job longer (Spector, 1997). Work environments that are safe and comfortable allow the employee to broaden and build their intellectual, social, and physical resources (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). “Positive emotions appear to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources” (Fredrickson, 1998, p. 302). Positive emotions allow an individual to feel comfortable and can create an environment that induces positive behaviors such as the urgency to explore, push the limits or to envision future success.
An individual also builds up a reserve of positive emotions that can be drawn upon in times of need. Positive emotions also produce the tendency to approach and undertake new goals. Knowing this information, one can hypothesize that positive emotions generate an “upward spiral,” enhancing emotional well-being and promote optimal functioning (Fredrickson, 2002; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Continued positive emotions foster the likelihood of ongoing positive emotions into the future. Upward spirals can occur in a variety of settings, including the workplace.
A study conducted with MBA students in managerial simulations showed that those with more positive emotions were more accurate and careful in a decision making task (Staw & Barsade, 1993). A meta-analysis was conducted gathering 300 different scientific studies about positivity. Across several studies, involving over 275,000 participants, there was strong evidence that positivity produces success in life as much as it reflects it. Positivity makes a difference. Studies show that happy employees perform 34 better than their unhappy counterparts on objective measures of work-related tasks, and are described as more autonomous (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Importantly, happy people are more productive (Zelenski, Murphy, & Jenkins, 2008). George (1995) found that workers who experience positive emotions are more invested and involved in their jobs while Iverson, Olekalns, and Erwin (1998) found that happy people show less burnout and they are less likely to leave their jobs (Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, &
Kelloway, 2000).
Research shows that those who report high levels of subjective well-being are more likely to complete college (Frisch et al., 2004). Before entrance into the work place has even occurred, those with higher levels of subjective well-being are more likely to succeed. Individuals with higher levels of subjective well-being tend to secure “better” jobs measured by the levels of autonomy, meaning and variety (Staw et al., 1994). Happy people are more likely to succeed once in a job and receive high rating from supervisors
(Cropanzano & Wright, 1999). Positive moods at work have been found to reduce withdrawal and job burnout (Donovan, 2000; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Cote (1999) found that that happiness and work performance mutually reinforce each other. That is happy moods (temporary states of well-being) lead workers to perform better.
Conversely, better performance produces better moods. Positive emotions entice a person to try new things and go after their goals. Happiness can improve work for both the organization and the individual.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2003) wrote in his book Good Business that two processes must occur for an individual to achieve happiness and these processes fit the world of work. 35 The first is the process of differentiation, which involves realizing that we are
unique individuals, responsible for our own survival and well-being, who are
willing to develop this uniqueness wherever it leads, while enjoying the
expression of our being in action. The second process involved integration, or the
realization that however unique we are, we are also completely enmeshed in
networks of relationships with other human beings, with cultural symbols and
artifacts, and with the surrounding natural environment. A person who is fully
differentiated and integrated becomes a complex individual- one who has the best
chance at leading a happy, vital and meaningful life. (p. 29)
Individuals want to do their best while contributing to those around them or to something bigger than themselves. An individual must believe that existence matters and that full potential can be realized.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was developed by Schaufeli et. al.
(2002) in order to evaluate the level of employee engagement. Prior to the creation of this scale most researchers were using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to measure engagement since, for many, engagement is seen as the converse of burnout (Maslach &
Leiter, 1997). Using this construct, employees with lower levels of exhaustion and cynicism and a high score on the professional efficacy score higher on the engagement measure. Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) found concerns with this method of measuring engagement for a few reasons. One cannot expect that the concepts of engagement and burnout are perfectly negatively correlated and if an employee is low on engagement it doesn’t mean he or she is burned-out. Burnout and engagement are two distinct concepts 36 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Separating the concepts allows them to be independently assessed. They define engagement as the following:
. . . a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state,
engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that
is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior. Vigor is
characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of
difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and
experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and
challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily
engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties
with detaching oneself from work. (p. 4)
With the creation of this definition, came the development of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES). The UWES is a self-report instrument that measures the three aspects of engagement discussed: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The (UWES) originally consisted of 24 items but after psychometric testing, was decreased to 17 items.
As of 2006 (Schaufeli et al.), UWES had been collected from over 14,000 employees in
10 different countries but none within the United States. The internal consistency of the three scales of the UWES usually ranges between 0.80 and 0.90 Cronbach’s alpha while the UWES has shown to be stable (Bakker et al., 2004). These demonstrated that the three aspects of vigor, absorption, and dedication are closely related and create a construct of engagement. After the creation of the 17-item version, further testing 37 resulted in a reduction to nine items. Both the 17- and 9-item version have been analyzed using one-and three-factor structure. This study will utilize the nine-item version and the one-factor structure due to construct validity found by Seppala et.al. (2009). The goodness-of-fit statistics for the one-and three-factor structure were acceptable and found that the structure used depends on the research purpose. If the study’s purpose “is work engagement, in general, a combined one-dimensional variable may be used and if the purpose is to study the factors of work engagement, three separate dimensions may be used” (Seppala et.al, 2009, p. 476). It was found that the nine-item version was more stable over time and population samples. Below you will find the questions identified for use on the UWES-9.
Vigor is assessed by the following three items on the UWES-9 on a seven-point scale (Figure 1). Those items reflect participants’ sense of energy, strength and vigor, and desire to go to work when getting up in the morning.
In regards to work, scoring high on vigor corresponds to high levels of energy, zest, and stamina. Dedication is assessed by measuring three items measuring enthusiasm, work inspiration, and work pride. This seven-point scale corresponds to a strong identity with one’s work as it is seen as meaningful, inspiring, and challenging.
Those scoring high on absorption feel they are happily engrossed in their work and would describe a feeling similar to “flow.” The items focus on working intensely, task immersion, and losing oneself in work.
38 Vi1 Vi1 Vi2 Vigor Vi3 Vi2 De2
Vi3 De2 Work De3 De3 Dedication Engagement Ab3 De4
De4 Ab4
Ab3 Absorption Ab5 Ab4 Ab5
Figure 1. Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (UWES) construct.
The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of the short version are good. The
Vigor questions were found to have a total of 0.84 in a range of 0.75-0.91 while the
Dedication questions had a total of 0.89 in a range of 0.83-0.93. The Absorption questions had a total of 0.79 in a range of 0.70-0.84. With regard to the factor structure of the UWES, studies show that the three-factor structure is superior to the one-factor but when considering the UWES-9, the fit of one-factor model is acceptable. It was found that the relative fit indices exceed the critical value of 0.90 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006).
A number of studies have been conducted to explore the relationship of the
UWES with burnout, causes of work engagement and consequences of work engagement.
The UWES has a negative relationship with the MBI which measures burnout. A positive relationship was found with job characteristics such as motivators, resources, job autonomy, and social support from co-workers (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & 39 Schaufeli, 2001). This study will utilize the UWES to measure the work engagement of participants.
Perceived Organizational Support
People are drawn to positive emotions and prefer to be surrounded by positive environments—environments where strengths are the norm and weaknesses are a thing of the past. We feel more open to change and problem solving. Fredrickson (2009) conducted experiments using a variety of visual images with different shapes where there are small shapes that could also create a larger shape or picture. The study found that those with positivity could see the larger picture. Those with negativity could not locate the larger picture. In the work of student affairs, it seems that the ability to see the
“bigger picture” is important as many decisions have a lasting effect. Incorporating positivity could or already having this trait may produce better decisions made by student affairs professionals.
Employee engagement can be improved through modifications of the organizational support. Employees can be assessed to design a better match of strengths to work or be “matched” to work with colleagues who complement their strengths.
Simply redesigning the elements of a task can result in a better “person-environment fit”
(Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006; Kristof, 1996; Quick & Tetrick, 2003). Providing challenging and interesting work is a great step towards work engagement. Like other work environments, student affairs can also benefit from attention to the emotional health of employees. In the fast paced world of student affairs, having an organization that promotes positive emotions may be essential to promoting retention, success and professional development. 40 Perceived organizational support is based on employees’ attitude concerning the value the organization places on their contribution and the degree to which the organization is believed to attend to their well-being. This construct aligns with the idea that employees have a high need for esteem surrounding their work, for approval from colleagues and supervisors who they deem important, and social affiliation with others.
This theory of perceived organizational support explains that employees form a perception of the organization and how it values their contributions and cares for their well-being. This perception corresponds to one’s sense of the benefits of increased work effort (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995).
Survey of Perceived Organizational Support
The Survey of Perceived Organization Support (SPOS) was developed in 1986 by
Robert Eisenberger, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa. Some statements within the survey evaluate the employee’s perception of the organization’s satisfaction with the respondent as a member of the organization and a sense of the evaluation of their performance. It also measures the employee’s sense that the organization places value on them as a continuing member of the organization into the future, the degree to which they believe extra effort is valued. The rest of the statements refer to the actions the organization may take in a given situation including willingness to help out with job problems, replacing the employee with a lower paid new employee or opportunities for promotion. The survey consists of 36 questions that ask a respondent to strongly agree, moderately agree, slightly agree, neither agree or disagree, slightly disagree, moderately disagree, or strongly disagree with a statement on a likert scale about their place of employment. Confirmatory analyses of the 8-item version of the 41 SPOS provided evidence for reliability, unidimensionality and acceptable item-total correlations (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Studies have been done to compare the SPOS to other measures such as job satisfaction and commitment and it was found to be distinct (Aquino & Griffeth, 1999; Kottke &
Sharafinski, 1988; Shore & Tetrick, 1991).
Person-environment fit. Research shows that happiness at work is not just about the job itself but the fit between the employer and employee. Many jobs can result in a sense of well-being if they enhance and challenge an individual’s strengths. It may surprise some that challenge is important but having some challenges at work is important to well-being. Too much challenge and the employee will feel overwhelmed.
Too little challenge and an employee will feel bored. A balance must be struck. An analysis conducted by Juszkiewicz, Arora, and Harter (2003) suggested that when looking at the top 20% of employees whose strengths match the job demands, a reduction in turnover can be found. Also a study of those who received a strength intervention resulted in a decrease of 14.9% in turnover in comparison to a control group (Asplund,
Lopez, Hodges & Harter, 2007).
Csikszentmihalyi (1991) described flow, an optimal state of a job matching one’s skill or ability. When an individual is in flow, she is absorbed in her work and time seems endless. Finding flow is possible for any individual. It is about finding a job that matches your talents but allows opportunities for growth and development. Individuals who experience flow are not just happier but are more productive. “Flow, in essence, the nature of work engagement” (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010, p. 126). 42 Student Affairs Work
NASPA defines the student affairs profession as one that “provides services, programs, and resources that help students learn and grow outside of the classroom”
(National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, n.d.). Creating a supportive learning environment is at the core of student affairs work. The Principles of Good
Practice for Student Affairs (Blimling, et al., 1999, p. 205) was created by American
College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators in 1996 and revised in 2009 to establish guidelines for good practice based on extensive research regarding successful learning-oriented student affairs work.
These principles are as follows:
1. Engage students in active learning.
2. Help students develop coherent values and ethical standards.
3. Set and communicate high expectations for student learning.
4. Use systematic inquiry to improve student and institutional performance.
5. Use resources effectively to achieve institutional missions and goals.
6. Forge educational partnerships that advance student learning.
7. Build supportive and inclusive communities.
Boehman (2007) found that a supportive environment can increase the attachment to an institution for student affairs professionals. An increase in attachment results in a decrease in attrition. This is important because attrition can impact morale on campus
(Lorden, 1998). In 1980, Bender surveyed members of the National Association of
Student Personnel Administrations regarding their satisfaction and their intent to stay in the field. It was found that 66% were satisfied with their jobs but only 36% intended to 43 stay in student affairs for their entire career of the 145 respondents. Of those respondents,
25% did not intend to stay in the field. The responses of young professionals (ages 23 to
36) were concerning as 31% indicated they did not intend to stay in the field while 41% were undecided.
Satisfaction of student affairs professionals. In 1980, Bender conducted research on the job satisfaction of student affairs professionals and found no difference by gender or age in the satisfaction levels. Being one of the first studies to focus on job satisfaction, it was concluded that only 18% reported job dissatisfaction at the time.
Another study showed that student affairs professionals reported higher levels of job satisfaction than did other administrators, such as presidents and academic affairs officers
(Bloland, Stamatakos, & Rogers, 1994). Studies have been conducted that found that senior student affairs officers at public institutions are more satisfied than those at public institution (Anderson, 1998) while entry-level professionals, regardless of institution type, are the least satisfied (Blackhurst, Brandt, & Kalinowski, 1998).
Leaving the career of student affairs. Professionals leave the field of student affairs for a variety of reasons. Research conducted by Berwick (1992) and Conley
(2001) found that job dissatisfaction results from role ambiguity and conflict, insufficient orientation to the work role, stress and burnout, work overload, and a perception of limited opportunities for goal attainment, professional development, and career advancement. “The work culture in many student affairs organizations is one that demands long hours of hard work for levels of compensation that are not competitive with the private sector” (Nobbe & Manning, 1997, p. 108). A study of turnover of any employees is difficult to research as once an employee leaves it is often difficult to follow 44 up. In a study by Lee and Mowday (1987), the intent to leave a position was good indicator of actual turnover. Johnsrud and Rosser (1998) found that older student affairs administrators and those working at smaller institutions were more likely to stay.
Outside of student affairs, employee engagement has been found to have an impact on employee retention. Corporate Leadership Council (2004) found that employees who are most committed are up to 87% less likely to leave their organization and a 10% improvement in commitment can decrease an employee’s probability of leaving the organization by 9%. Across Europe, 35% of disengaged employees intend to change organizations in comparison to the 3% of highly engaged employees (Towers
Perrin, 2006).
Research conducted by Harter and Blacksmith (2010) regarding why employees stay and leave organizations found some interesting information regarding engagement.
An open ended question was asked of employees who were at their present organization for 3 years or more was why they had stayed, while individuals who had left an organization in the last 3 years were asked why had they left (Gallup, 2007). A pattern was found that would indicate that the most tenured employees are the least engaged.
When thinking about student affairs, a profession where employees are prepared by their upper-level management through mentorship, these are concerning results. Towers Perrin
(2006) found that greater employee loyalty is found with higher levels of engagement and highly engaged employees believe they can affect customer service.
Recent studies have shown that Generation X and Millennial employees want to be engaged in their work. It is about more than money (Fields, Wilder, Brunch, &
Newbold, 2008). Research done by Westerman and Yamamura (2007) found that 45 individuals identified as Generation X and Y are more likely to change jobs if the work environment does not meet their needs. These studies were not specific to student affairs professionals.
Summary
This study addresses engaged employees and their intent to stay in their positions.
There is considerable research in other fields about work engagement (Harter &
Blacksmith, 2010; Fields, Wilder, Brunch, & Newbold, 2008; Westerman & Yamamura,
2007); and within student affairs there is considerable research on the employee satisfaction (Bender, 1980; Berwick, 1992; Conley, 2001), but not on work engagement.
Thus, this dissertation addresses a gap by assessing the degree of work engagement among student affairs professionals. Furthermore, it examines the relationship between work engagement and various demographic variables such as gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs, institution type, and functional area.
Previous research (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010; Corporate Leadership Council,
2004) shows that there is a relationship between work engagement and employees’ intent to stay in their professional roles/work places. This has not been tested within the student affairs field. Thus, it is appropriate to measure the relationship in this study.
The theoretical and empirical scholarship points to both personal qualities and environmental qualities informing employee engagement. Positive psychologists note the connection between personal happiness and work satisfaction. However, there are disagreements about the degree to which one’s personal happiness leads to work satisfaction and work or vice versa. For example, Warr (2007) notes that well-being at work is based on certain conditions being met. For example, important work features 46 include having the opportunity for personal control and the opportunity for skill use and variety if work tasks; environmental clarity is also an important criterion for work well- being. On the other hand, Lyubomirsky (2008) stresses that personal voluntary activities such as practicing gratitude and performing acts of kindness for others are more important to one’s happiness than are environmental circumstances. Because both one’s personal happiness and work environment are theorized to be relevant to work satisfaction, it is worthwhile to examine the connection between both happiness and organizational support with work engagement. The research suggests that work engagement and happiness, in particular, may be symbiotic. That is, one’s happiness may produce more engagement at work, and engagement may produce more personal happiness. This study does not address causality, but rather explores the relationships among these variables in a professional setting previously not researched.
47 Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter will outline the methodology used to determine the level of happiness and engagement of student affairs professionals with regard to their perceived organizational support. The purpose of the study is to better understand factors that positively influence student affairs professionals’ happiness and engagement in their work. This chapter will focus on the design of the study, data collection procedures, instrumentation and method of procedure.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to explore the relationship between work and the student affairs profession:
1. To what extent are student affairs professionals engaged as measured by the
UWES?
2. To what extent are student affairs professionals happy as measured by the
Subjective Happiness Scale?
3. What is the perceived level of organizational support for student affairs
professionals as measured by the SPOS?
4. What is the relationship between the perceived level of organizational support and
work engagement?
5. What is the relationship between student affairs professionals’ happiness and
work engagement?
6. To what extent does the perceived level of organizational support contribute to
happiness and engagement? 48 7. What is the relationship between the level of student affairs professionals’ work
engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for new
professionals?
8. Does the level of engagement as measured by the UWES, the level of happiness
as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the perceived level of
organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by SPOS
differ by gender and number of years in current position and in student affairs,
functional area, and institution type?
The following statistical hypotheses describe research questions 4-8 of this quantitative study.
H01 – There is a significant relationship between the engagement scores based on the level of perceived organizational support.
H02 - There is a significant relationship in the happiness score in relation to the level of engagement.
H03 – There is a significant relationship between perceived organizational support and engagement or happiness
H04 – There is a significant relationship between intent to stay and engagement.
H05 – There is a significant difference in engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support in regards to gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs, functional area, and institution type.
These hypotheses were central to testing the core assumptions that student affairs professionals with high levels of engagement and happiness may be correlated with high levels of perceived organizational support. The study explored to what degree happiness 49 and engagement relate to the professional’s perception of organizational support. The hypotheses evaluated whether or not a significant relationship existed among the study variables.
Research Design
A correlational study was used to determine if a relationship existed between work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support. This method was selected because it allows the researcher to examine the relationships between two or more variables. “A correlation is a measure of the linear relationship between variables”
(Field, 2005, p. 107).
Population and Sample
The participants in this study were student affairs professionals working at institutions of higher education in the United States and were members of Association of
College Personnel Administrators (ACPA). The sample consists of 2,500 of the 12,000 student affairs professionals who are members of ACPA. The rationale for using this membership database was the ability to obtain a large amount of responses from a wide variety of student affairs professionals as it is comprised of more than 12,000 members in all 50 states, 29 countries, and 8 U.S. territories. The mission of ACPA is “To be the principal source for leadership, scholarship, professional development, and advocacy for student affairs” (American College Personnel Association, n.d.). This study will use a stratified random sample that takes into consideration a range of the number of years in the field. The specific random selection sampling procedure was not provided by the organization. Staff members at ACPA generated the random sample and sent the survey 50 to the sample on my behalf. I was never provided the names or any identifying descriptors of the sample.
Instrumentation
A survey was used that included 4 parts: demographic information, the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES), Happiness Subjective Scale, and the Survey of
Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). Based on the literature review, the previous mentioned instruments were used based on their strong psychometric properties.
Qualtrics, an online survey software, was used to develop the survey.
I developed items to collect demographic information on gender, age, number of years in current position and in student affairs, area of office or work (functional area), and institution type. A question was included in regards to the participant’s intent to stay in student affairs. Participants could list any functional area in an open-ended question but after the surveys were completed, I reviewed the results to determine if any functional areas were well represented and therefore could be grouped. Of the 299 participants, 34 listed advising, 83 listed housing or residence life, and 44 list student activities. All other functional areas listed never comprised a group larger than 15 so all other functional areas were listed under the “other” category. Some examples were judicial affairs, assessment, dean of students office, community service and disability services. I used my knowledge of department names and functional responsibilities to categorized the groups.
Utrecht work engagement scale. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), developed by Wilmar Schaufeli and Arnold Bakker (2003), has a 17-item version and a
9-item version. For this study, the 9-item version will be used as this version was more stable over time and population samples. The 9-item version, like the 17-item version 51 uses three subscales that measure vigor, absorption and dedication with three questions for each subscale to get a total score for work engagement. The one-factor structure will be used in this study to analysis work engagement in general, not as three separate factors. As mentioned in Chapter 2, if the purpose of the study is work engagement, the one-dimensional variable can be used. Also the 9-item version was more stable over time and population samples. Studies have supported the correlated three-factor structure of the UWES-9 (Schaufeli & Baker, 2003). Reliability estimates for the 9-item subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.90 (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
The score of the UWES is determined by the mean of all nine questions ranging from 0-6 with a higher score equal to more engagement at work. Some example questions are, “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor); “I am proud of the work that I do”
(dedication); and “I feel happy when I am working intensely” (absorption). Each question is rated based on how often an individual feels that way ranging from never to everyday.
The UWES is free for use for non-commercial scientific research. The authors do ask for some raw data to be submitted to them once the study is complete. Also, in order to avoid answering bias, the title of the survey is “Work & Well-being Survey” as oppose to using the work engagement in the survey title.
Permission to use the UWES was granted by the authors as long as the survey is being used for non-commercial purposes.
Survey of perceived organizational support. SPOS consists of 36 items relating to the degree an individual agrees or disagrees with a statement provided such as “My institution really cares about my well-being,” “My institution provides me little opportunity to move up the ranks,” and “My institution fails to appreciate any extra effort 52 from me.” On the original survey, there is blank line for the surveyor to insert the place of employment. For the purpose of this study, “my institution” was used. Of the 36 items,
18 are reversed scored with the highest score possible being 6. A response can range from strongly disagree (0) or strongly agree (6). The authors (Eisenberger et al., 1986) found that employees consistently agreed with statements regarding whether their place of employment appreciated their contributions and treated them favorable in certain situations. A high score indicates a positive orientation.
The SPOS has been supported as a unidimensional scale and has high internal reliability. An analysis resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97 with item-total correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.83. Permission to use the SPOS was granted by Robert
Eisenberger via email.
Subjective happiness scale. The Subjective Happiness Scale consists of four questions to measure the global happiness of the participant. The scale is used by finding the mean of the four questions. The highest score possible is 7. The test-retest reliability of the Scale ranged from 0.55 to 0.90 with the time lag between sessions of 3 weeks to 1 year. The researcher assessed convergent validity by correlating the scale with other measures of happiness and well-being and found substantial correlations ranging from
0.52 to 0.72 between the scale and other measures (Lepper & Lyubomirsky, 1997). The
Subjective Happiness Scale was chosen for its psychometric properties and its close relevance to the current study. Permission to use the scale is granted by Sonja
Lyubomirsky as long as it is used for non-commercial use. 53 Data Collection Procedures
The Ohio University IRB approved this study. After securing IRB approval, I contacted ACPA to gain permission for the Association to send an email to the members randomly selected based on membership type. On April 10, 2013, an email was sent to selected members of ACPA asking for their participation in the study (Appendix A). The email contained a link to the survey created using the Qualtrics website. The questions that were included on the online survey are listed in Appendix B. Each of the professionals received a follow up email 7 days later to remind them of the survey completion date. A second follow up email was sent after 14 days.
The email included details of the study and contact information. Respondents were assured neither their personal identity nor the specific identity of their institution would be released in the dissertation. In order to ensure confidentiality, the names of the members that received the survey were never revealed to the researcher. The data collected was compiled in a database by the Qualtrics website.
Data Analysis
A quantitative approach was used for this study. The study used a Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), a computer-based statistical analysis software package, to enter, and analyze survey results. The study used descriptive statistics to analyze the data (e.g., mean, range, and standard deviation).
The first three research questions were needed to determine the descriptive statistics of the study variables.
The fourth research question of the study was: What is the relationship between the perceived level of organizational support and work engagement? A Pearson’s 54 correlation coefficient was used to determine the significance of the relationship between the level of support and the level of engagement. The dependent variable is the engagement score while the independent variable is the perceived organizational support score.
The fifth research question was: What is the relationship between student affairs professionals’ happiness and work engagement? The null hypothesis was used to test and compute the Pearson correlation to determine the significance of the relationship between the engagement of the professionals measured by the UWES and their level of happiness measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale. The dependent variable is happiness while the independent variable is engagement.
The sixth research question was the following: What is the relative contribution of the perceived level of organizational support to happiness and engagement? A Pearson correlation was used to determine the significance of a relationship between perceived organizational support and happiness or engagement. The dependent variable was happiness measured on the Subjective Happiness Scale and work engagement measured on the UWES. The independent variable was perceived organizational support as measured by the SPOS.
The seventh research question was the following: What is the relationship between the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for new professionals? A one-way ANOVA was used to determine the significance of a relationship between work engagement and intent to stay.
The final research question was: Does the level of engagement as measured by the
UWES, the level of happiness as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the 55 perceived level of organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by
SPOS differ by gender and number of years in current position and in student affairs, functional area, and institution type? A series of one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support differ by the different groups of demographic information of gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs, functional area, and institution type.
Summary
This chapter contained an explanation of the research study including research questions, hypotheses and the research method. Members of the Association of College
Personnel Administrators will be surveyed using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, the Subjective Happiness Scale and demographic questions such as gender and years in current position. Pearson correlations and ANOVAs will be used to explore any relationships between the variables. Chapter 4 will describe the data analysis and results of the study, followed by Chapter 5, which provides a discussion on the findings.
56 Chapter 4: Results
As stated in Chapter 1, the study reported here examined work engagement, perceived organizational support and happiness. The chapter is organized around the eight research questions posed in Chapter 1. Demographic questions were also included.
The focus of this chapter is to present the results of the quantitative analyses that are conducted to address the eight research questions. The study outcomes are presented in tables with descriptive narratives. First, the summaries of the demographic information of the sample are presented. The results of the descriptive statistics of study variables,
Pearson correlation analysis, and ANOVA are presented to address the research questions of the study.
Survey Population and Response Rate
The survey was sent to 2500 random ACPA members. There were 454 responses but 112 of those responses were faculty or graduate students and were filtered out because they did not meet the parameters of the research design. Of the 342 responses that remained, 43 only completed the demographic information and did not complete the survey questions. Only 299 participants remained as part of the sample of the study. The responses rate overall was 18% but since some were removed, the response rate was
12%.
Summaries of Demographic Information of the Sample
This section provides descriptive statistics on the data collected from the student affairs professionals using the survey instrument. Table 1 lists the distribution of survey respondents by demographics groups. The demographic information include gender, 57 current age, primary role at institution, number of years in current position and in student affairs, about student affairs, type of institution working, and functional areas assigned.
Of the 299 participants that remained, 102 (34.1%) were male, 194 (64.9%) were female, and 1 (0.3%) did not report. For the distribution of survey respondents by age, the age groups of 25-29 years old (29.1%) and 30-34 years old (21.7%) appear to be the largest representation. The age range among the 299 study participants was 20 to 65 or more years old. All of the 299 student affairs professionals worked at institutions of higher education in the United States, were members of ACPA, and were primarily staff.
In terms of the number of years in current position, majority (75.6%) or 226 out of the
299 student affairs professionals are in their current position for 0-5 years. The mean number of years in current position is 4.75 years. In terms of the number of years in student affairs, 110 (36.8%) student affairs professionals are in student affairs for 0-5 years, 62 (20.7%) are in student affairs for 6-10 years, 46 (15.4%) are in student affairs for 11-15 years, 36 (12%) are in student affairs for 21-30 years, and 26 (8.7%) are in student affairs for 16-20 years. Eighty-two participants (27%) reported that their current job was their first professional job in student affairs while 217 (73%) reported it was not.
One hundred and sixty participants (54%) intend to stay in the student affairs profession through retirement while 16 (5%) do not, and 123 participants (41%) are unsure. For the type of institution they work, more than half (58.5%) of the 299 student affairs professionals work in a public, 4-year type of institution while a significant number (104;
34.8%) of student affairs professionals work in a private, 4-year type of institution. For functional area; findings reflect the three largest and recognized groups within the study.
58 Table 1
Summaries of Demographic Information (n = 299)
Frequency Percent Gender Male 102 34.1 Female 194 64.9 Prefer Not To Answer 1 0.3 Current age 20-24 12 4 25-29 87 29.1 30-34 65 21.7 35-39 34 11.4 40-44 31 10.4 45-49 20 6.7 50-54 23 7.7 55-59 15 5 60-64 4 1.3 65 + 8 2.7 Primary role at your institution Staff 299 100 Number of years in current position 0-5 years 226 75.6 6-10 years 37 12.4 11-20 years 25 8.4 21-More 11 3.7 Number of years in student affairs 0-5 Years 110 36.8 6-10 Years 62 20.7 11-15 Years 46 15.4 16-20 Years 26 8.7 21-30 Years 36 12 31 or More Years 19 6.4 Is this your first professional job in student affairs? Yes 82 27.4 No 217 72.6 Do you intend to stay in the student affairs profession through retirement? Yes 160 53.5 No 16 5.4 Unsure 123 41.1 Type of institution in which you work Public, 4 year 175 58.5 Public, 2 year 14 4.7 Private, 4 year 104 34.8 Private, 2 year 2 0.7 Other 4 1.3 Functional Areas by Group Advising 34 11.4 Housing 83 27.8 Other 138 46.2 Student Activities 44 14.7
59 However, categorization allows for specificity in clustering and analysis. The three categories were advising (11.4%), housing (27.8%), and student activities (14.7%).
Results and Analysis
The following section provides an analysis of the eight identified research questions to evaluate the data collected in order to determine the happiness, work engagement and perceived organizational support of student affairs professionals. Each research question is stated below with the statistical measure used.
Research Question One: To what extent are student affairs professionals engaged as measured by the UWES?
Research Question Two: To what extent are student affairs professionals happy as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale?
Research Question Three: What is the perceived level of organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by the SPOS?
Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the study variables of student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (n = 299)
N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Utrecht Work Engagement 299 1.78 6.00 4.42 0.91 Scale (UWES) Survey of Perceived Organizational Support 298 0.89 5.78 3.74 1.00 (SPOS) Subjective Happiness Scale 299 2.25 7.00 5.39 1.02 (SHS)
60 Analyses of these statistics addresses research questions one to three. For the extent the student affairs professionals are engaged, the overall mean score was 4.42 (SD =
0.91). The mean score was in the middle end of the 0 to 6 possible range of scores. This means that the student affairs professional are moderately engaged at work in their institution. For the extent the student affairs professionals are happy, the overall mean score was 5.49 (SD = 102). The mean score was in the middle end of the 1 to 7 possible range of scores. This means that the student affairs professionals have a moderate level of happiness. For the extent of the student affairs professionals’ perceived level of organizational support, the overall mean score was 3.74 (SD = 1.00). The mean score was in middle of the 1 to 7 range of possible score. This indicated that the student affairs professionals have average scores for perceived level of organizational support indicating that they have neutral perceived levels of organizational support.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize the descriptive statistics of the study variables of student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support regarding gender, years in current position and years in student affairs. In Table 4, the scores of engagement increased as the years in the current position increased. The same occurred with happiness up until the last group. In Table 5, the scores for engagement, organizational support, and happiness for those in the 31 or more years in student affairs were higher than the scores for the group with 0-5 years in student affairs.
61 Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Variables by Gender
UWES SPOS SHS Male N 102 102 102 Mean 4.48 3.83 4.59 Minimum 1.78 1.25 3.00 Maximum 6.00 5.78 5.75 Std. Deviation .95 1.00 0.58 Female N 194 193 194 Mean 4.37 3.68 4.57 Minimum 2.11 0.89 1.75 Maximum 6.00 5.78 6.00 Std. Deviation .88 1.00 0.61
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of Variables by Number of Years in Current Position
UWES SPOS SHS 0-5 Years N 226 225 226 Mean 4.33 3.71 4.57 Minimum 1.78 0.89 1.75 Maximum 6.00 5.78 6.00 Std. Deviation 0.93 1.03 0.62 6-10 Years N 37 37 37 Mean 4.62 3.65 4.60 Minimum 2.67 1.77 3.25 Maximum 6.00 5.53 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.76 0.90 0.50 11-20 Years N 25 25 25 Mean 4.70 3.96 4.65 Minimum 2.78 1.92 3.00 Maximum 6.00 5.25 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.82 0.79 0.58 21 or More Years N 11 11 11 Mean 5.02 4.14 4.64 Minimum 4.11 2.28 3.75 Maximum 6.00 5.78 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.65 1.19 0.60
62 Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Variables by Number of Years in Student Affairs
UWES SPOS SHS 0-5 Years N 110 109 110 Mean 4.23 3.74 4.54 Minimum 1.78 1.50 1.75 Maximum 6.00 5.67 6.00 Std. Deviation 0.93 0.96 0.68 6-10 Years N 62 62 62 Mean 4.38 3.58 4.59 Minimum 2.33 1.25 3.00 Maximum 6.00 5.78 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.87 1.03 0.58 11-15 Years N 46 46 46 Mean 4.28 3.44 4.59 Minimum 2.11 0.89 3.00 Maximum 6.00 5.58 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.96 1.14 0.60 16-20 Years N 26 26 26 Mean 4.45 3.70 4.47 Minimum 2.78 1.42 3.00
Maximum 5.78 5.25 5.25 Std. Deviation 0.84 0.94 0.49 21-30 Years N 36 36 36 Mean 4.82 3.99 4.66 Minimum 2.67 2.31 3.75 Maximum 5.89 5.78 5.50 Std. Deviation 0.73 0.83 0.54 31 or More Years N 19 19 19 Mean 5.20 4.62 4.75 Minimum 4.25 3.33 4.00 Maximum 6.00 5.53 5.25 Std. Deviation 0.50 0.63 0.38
Appendix C shows the scatterplots of the data of student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support. It can be observed from the plots that there were no outliers existing in the data set since the possible values of the each of the continuous variable were within the range of possible scores (minimum 63 and maximum). There was no abnormality shown in the graph. Appendix D showed the histogram of the data of student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support. It can be observed from each of the three histograms that the distribution of data formed a representation of a bell-shaped curve pattern for a normal distribution. Although the bell-shaped pattern formed in the graph was not a perfect representation of the desired pattern. This indicated that the data for student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support showed the normality. Appendix E, F, G, and H show the boxplot of the data of student affairs professionals’ level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support by gender, age, number of years in current position, and number of years in student affairs. This showed the graphical comparisons of the values of level of work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support by each grouping of the categorical groups. The detailed analyses of the difference by categorical groups were analyzed in the ANOVA for research question 8.
Research Question Four: What is the relationship between the perceived level of organizational support and work engagement?
Research Question Five: What is the relationship between student affairs professionals’ happiness and work engagement?
Research Question Six: To what extend does the perceived level of organizational support contribute to happiness and engagement?
A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationships of the study of work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support. The results of these analyses address research questions four to six. The Pearson correlation 64 test is a statistical test that determines correlation between two continuous measured variables. A Pearson correlation coefficient will be calculated to index the strength
(weak, moderate, and strong) and direction of the relationships (positive or negative) among the stated variables. A two-tailed test and level of significance of 0.05 was used in the correlation test. Significant correlation between variables is observed if the probability value of the r statistic of the Pearson correlation test is less than the critical value of the level of significance set at 0.05. Table 6 includes the results of the correlations among the study variables.
Table 6
Pearson’s Correlation Results of Correlation of Study Variables
Total Survey of Total Perceived Subjective
Organizational Happiness Support (SPOS) Scale (SHS) Pearson Correlation 0.50* 0.30* Utrecht Work Engagement Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00 Scale (UWES) N 298 299 Survey of Perceived Pearson Correlation 0.23*
Organizational Support Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 (SPOS) N 298
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The results of the correlation showed that work engagement and perceived level of organizational support (r(296) = 0.50, p < 0.001) have a significant positive and moderate relationship, work engagement and happiness (r(297) = 0.30, p < 0.001) have a significant positive and moderate relationship, and perceived level of organizational support and happiness (r(296) = 0.23, p < 0.001) have a significant positive and weak relationship. The strength of the correlation was moderate when the r coefficient is in the 65 range of values between 0.30 and 0.70 and weak when the r coefficient is below 0.30.
The positive correlation means that there will be higher work engagement among the samples of student affairs professionals if they have higher perceived level of organizational support and also happiness; and there will be higher perceived level of organizational support if there is increase in happiness by the samples of student affairs professionals.
Research Question Seven: What is the relationship between the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for new professionals?
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the relationship of level of student affairs professional’s work engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for those individuals that have been in student affairs from 0-5 years, also defined as new professionals, versus those who have been in student affairs for 6-10,11-
15,16-20,21-30, 31 or more years. Comparison is also conducted if there is a significant effect of the interaction of the intent to stay in the student affairs profession and number of years in student affairs on the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement.
The numbers of years in student affairs have two groupings of those who have been in student affairs for 0-5 years compared with all others (6-10,11-15,16-20,21-30, 31 or more years) as one large group. At the same time, the two-way ANOVA is conducted to determine whether the continuous measured dependent variable of work engagement is related with the categorically measured independent variable of intent to stay in the student affairs profession. This analysis addresses research question seven. A level of significance of 0.05 was used in the ANOVA. There is a significant relationship if the p- 66 value is less than or equal to the level of significance value. This analysis determined whether the student affairs professional’s work engagement significantly differed by the different groups of intent to stay in the student affairs profession. The ANOVA result is presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Two-Way ANOVA Results of Relationship of Work Engagement and Intent to Stay in the
Student Affairs Profession
Type III Source Mean Sum of df F Sig. Square Squares Corrected Model 30.709a 3 10.24 14.06 0.00* Intercept 4772.48 1 4772.48 6553.43 0.00* Number of Years in Student Affairs 0.92 1 0.92 1.26 0.26 Intent to Stay in the Student Affairs Profession for 19.71 1 19.71 27.07 0.00* New Professionals Number of Years in Student Affairs * Intent to Stay in the Student Affairs Profession for New 0.85 1 0.85 1.16 0.28 Professionals Error 214.83 295 0.728 Total 6095.55 299 Corrected Total 245.54 298 a. R Squared = 0.13 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.12) b. Dependent Variable: Total UWES *Significant at level of significance of 0.05
The result of the two-way ANOVA test showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(1, 299) = 27.07, p < 0.001) was significantly related or differed by their intent to stay in the student affairs profession for individuals.. This was because the p-value was less than the level of significance of 0.05. The mean comparison showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement of the student affairs professionals that said “yes” that they intend to stay in the student 67 affairs profession have higher work engagement than those that said “no”, and “unsure” that they intend to stay in the student affairs profession.
However, the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(1, 299) =
1.26, p = 0.26) was not significantly related or differed by their number of years in student affairs and also the interaction effects of intent to stay in the student affairs profession and number of years in student affairs (F(1, 299) = 1.16, p = 0.28) on the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement was also insignificant. This result meant that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement did not significantly differed by their intent to stay in the student affairs profession between the individuals that have been in student affairs from 0-5 years (new professionals) and those with greater experiences (6-10,11-15,16-20,21-30, 31 or more years).
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics Comparison of Work Engagement by Groupings of Intent to Stay in the Student Affairs Profession
Std. Do you intend to stay in the student affairs profession through retirement? Mean Deviation N 1 Yes 4.71 0.77 160 2 No/Unsure 4.09 0.94 139 Total 4.42 0.91 299
Research Question Eight: Does the level of engagement as measured by the UWES, the level of happiness as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the perceived level of organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by SPOS differ by gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs, functional area, and institution type? 68 A series of one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support differ by the different groups of demographic information of gender, number of years in current position and in student affairs, functional area, and institution type. A level of significance of 0.05 was used in the ANOVA. There is a significant difference if the p-value is less than or equal to the level of significance value.
The test of homogeneity of variance or equality of variances in Table 9 showed that the variances of work engagement (Levene Statistic (1, 294) = 0.28, p = 0.60), happiness
(Levene Statistic (1, 293) = 0.09, p = 0.77), and perceived level of organizational support
(Levene Statistic (1, 294) = 0.01, p = 0.94) were homogeneous across each of the gender groups because the p-values greater than the level of significance of 0.05. If the p-value in the Levene’s test was greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis that the variance of the dependent variable is equal across each category of the independent variable is retained.
Table 9
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Gender
Levene df1 df2 Sig. Statistic Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 0.28 1 294 0.60 Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) 0.09 1 293 0.77 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 0.01 1 294 0.94
The ANOVA results to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly by their gender are presented in Table 10. 69 Table 10
ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Gender
Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square Utrecht Work Engagement Between Groups 0.71 1 0.71 0.86 0.36 Scale (UWES) Within Groups 242.38 294 0.82 Total 243.09 295 Survey of Perceived Between Groups 1.51 1 1.51 1.50 0.22 Organizational Support Within Groups 295.44 293 1.01 (SPOS) Total 296.95 294 Subjective Happiness Scale Between Groups 0.04 1 0.04 0.12 0.74 (SHS) Within Groups 105.90 294 0.36 Total 105.94 295
The result of the ANOVA test showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(1, 294) = 0.86, p = 0.36), perceived level of organizational support (1F( , 293) = 1.50, p = 0.22), and happiness 1(F( , 294) = 0.12, p =
0.74) did not significantly differed when there are differences in the gender of the samples of student affairs professional. The ANOVA results to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly by the number of years in their current position are presented in Table 12. The test of homogeneity of variance or equality of variances in
Table 11 showed that the variances of work engagement (Levene Statistic (3, 295) =
1.98, p = 0.12) and perceived level of organizational support (Levene Statistic (3, 295) =
0.76, p = 0.52) were homogeneous across each of the number of years in their current position groups while the variance of happiness (Levene Statistic (3, 294) = 0.09, p =
0.77) was not homogeneous across each of the number of years in their current position groups. However, the ANOVA is robust to violations of the assumption of homogeneity 70 of variances provided the ratio of the largest group variance or standard deviation is not more than three times the smallest group variance or standard deviation (Kline, 2005).
This is the case for the happiness as can be observed in the standard deviation value (SD
= 1.02) in Table 2.
Table 11
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Number of Years in Current Position
Levene df1 df2 Sig. Statistic Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 1.98 3 295 0.12 Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) 2.79 3 294 0.04 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 0.76 3 295 0.52
Table 12
ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Number of Years in Current Position
Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square Utrecht Work Engagement Between Groups 9.27 3 3.09 3.86 0.01* Scale (UWES) Within Groups 236.27 295 0.80 Total 245.54 298 Survey of Perceived Between Groups 3.44 3 1.15 1.14 0.33 Organizational Support Within Groups 295.56 294 1.01 (SPOS) Total 299.01 297 Subjective Happiness Scale Between Groups 6.08 3 2.03 1.97 0.12 (SHS) Within Groups 302.80 295 1.03 Total 308.87 298 *Significant at level of significance of 0.05
The result of the ANOVA test showed that only the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(3, 295) = 3.86, p = 0.01) significantly differed when 71 there are differences in the number of years in their current position; while perceived level of organizational support ( F(2, 293) = 0.75, p = 0.45), and happiness (F(2, 294) =
0.27, p = 0.77) did not significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in their current position.
A post-hoc test using the Tukey’s statistics was conducted to further analyze the
ANOVA result of how the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in their current position. Table 10 summarizes the significant post-hoc test results of the data resulting from a multiple comparison of level of student affairs professional’s work engagement to the different groups of intent to stay in the student affairs profession.
Table 13
Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and
Organizational Support by Groupings of Number of Years in Current Position
Dependent (I) Number (J) Number of 95% Confidence Mean Variable of years in years in Std. Interval Differenc Sig. current current Error e (I-J) Lower Upper position position Bound Bound Utrecht Work 0-5 years 6-10 years -0.29 0.16 0.25 -0.70 0.12 Engagement 11-20 years -0.37 0.19 0.21 -0.85 0.12 Scale (UWES) 21-More -0.69 0.28 0.06 -1.41 0.02 6-10 years 11-20 years -0.07 0.23 0.99 -0.67 0.53 21-More -0.40 0.31 0.57 -1.19 0.40 11-20 years 21-More -0.32 0.32 0.75 -1.16 0.51
The post-hoc test showed that the student affairs professionals that are in their current positions for duration of 0-5 years have significantly lower work engagement as compared to those who are in their current positions for duration of 6-10 years (Mean 72 difference = -0.29), 11-20 years (Mean difference = -0.37), and 21-more years (Mean difference = -0.69). Student affairs professionals that are in their current positions for duration of 6-10 years have significantly lower work engagement as compared to those who are in their current positions for duration of 11-20 years (Mean difference = -0.07) and 21-more years (Mean difference = -0.40). Student affairs professionals that are in their current positions for duration of 11-20 years have significantly lower work engagement as compared to those who are in their current positions for duration of 21- more years (Mean difference = -0.32). The results suggested that the student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in their current position have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have lesser number of years in their current position.
The ANOVA results to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly differed by the number of years in student affairs are presented in
Table 14.
Years in students affairs is the between subject variable with 6 levels (0-5 years, 6-
10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 21-30 years and 31 or more years). The result of the
ANOVA test showed that level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(5,
293) = 5.80, p < 0.001), perceived level of organizational support ( F(5, 292) = 4.77, p <
0.001), and happiness ( F(5, 293) = 3.34, p = 0.01) significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in student affairs.
73 Table 14
ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs
Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square Utrecht Work Between Groups 22.10 5 4.42 5.80 0.00* Engagement Scale Within Groups 223.44 293 0.76 (UWES) Total 245.54 298 Survey of Perceived Between Groups 22.56 5 4.51 4.77 0.00* Organizational Support Within Groups 276.44 292 0.95 (SPOS) Total 299.01 297 Subjective Happiness Between Groups 16.66 5 3.33 3.34 0.01* Scale (SHS) Within Groups 292.21 293 1.00 Total 308.87 298 *Significant at level of significance of 0.05
The test of homogeneity of variance or equality of variances in Table 15 showed that the variances of happiness (Levene Statistic (5, 293) = 1.55, p = 0.17) and perceived level of organizational support (Levene Statistic (5, 292) = 1.95, p = 0.09) were homogeneous across each of the number of years in student affairs s while the variance of work engagement (Levene Statistic (5, 293) = 2.35, p = 0.04) was not homogeneous across each of the number of years in student affairs groups. However, the ANOVA is robust to violations of the assumption of homogeneity of variances provided the ratio of the largest group variance or standard deviation is not more than three times the smallest group variance or standard deviation (Kline, 2005). This is the case for the work engagement as can be observed in the standard deviation value (SD = 0.91) in Table 2.
74 Table 15
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs
Levene df1 df2 Sig. Statistic Total Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 2.35 5 293 0.04 Total Survey of Perceived Organizational Support 1.95 5 292 0.09 (SPOS) Total Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 1.55 5 293 0.17
A post-hoc test using the Tukey’s statistics was conducted to further analyze the
ANOVA result of how the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in student affairs. Table 16 summarizes the significant post-hoc test results of the data resulting from a multiple comparison of level of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support to the different groups of number of years in student affairs.
The post-hoc test showed that the student affairs professionals that have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 0-5 years have significantly lower work engagement as compared to those who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 21-30 years (Mean difference = -0.58) and 31 or more years (Mean difference
= -0.96). Student affairs professionals that have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 6-10 years have significantly lower work engagement as compared to those who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 31 or more years (Mean difference = -0.82). Student affairs professionals that have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 11-15 years have significantly lower work engagement as 75 compared to those who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 31 or more years (Mean difference = -0.92). The results suggested that the student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs.
Table 16
Tukey’s Post-Hoc Test of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and
Organizational Support by Groupings of Number of Years in Student Affairs
Dependent (I) Number of (J) Number of Mean SE Sig. 95% Confidence Variable years in years in student Differenc Interval student affairs affairs e (I-J) Lower Upper Bound Bound Utrecht Work 0-5 Years 21-30 Years -0.58* 0.17 0.01 -1.07 -0.10 Engagement 31 or More Years -0.96* 0.22 0.00 -1.59 -0.34 Scale * 6-10 Years 31 or More Years -0.82 0.23 0.01 -1.48 -0.16 (UWES) 11-15 Years 31 or More Years -0.92* 0.24 0.00 -1.60 -0.24 Survey of 0-5 Years 31 or More Years -0.88* 0.24 0.00 -1.57 -0.19 Perceived 6-10 Years 31 or More Years -1.04* 0.26 0.00 -1.77 -0.31 Organizationa * l Support 11-15 Years 31 or More Years -1.17 0.27 0.00 -1.94 -0.41 (SPOS) 16-20 Years 31 or More Years -0.92* 0.29 0.02 -1.76 -0.08 Subjective 0-5 Years 31 or More Years -0.85* 0.25 0.01 -1.56 -0.14 Happiness Scale (SHS) *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The post-hoc test showed that the student affairs professionals that have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 31 or more years have significantly higher perceived level of organizational support as compared to those who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 0-5 years (mean difference = -0.88), 6-10 years
(mean difference = -1.04), 11-15 years (mean difference = -1.17), and 16-20 years (mean 76 difference = -0.92). The results suggested that the student affairs professionals who have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher perceived level of organizational support as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs.
The post-hoc test showed that the student affairs professionals who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 31 or more years have significantly higher level of happiness as compared to those who have a number of years in student affairs for duration of 0-5 years (mean difference = -0.85). This result suggested that the student affairs professionals who have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher level of happiness compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs.
The ANOVA results to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly differed by their functional areas are presented in Table 17. The result of the ANOVA test showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(3, 295) = 1.73, p = 0.16), happiness (F(3, 294) = 0.76, p = 0.52), and perceived level of organizational support ( F(3, 295) = 1.63, p = 0.18) did not significantly differ when compared to functional areas.
The test of homogeneity of variance or equality of variances in Table 18 showed that the variances of work engagement (Levene Statistics (3, 295) = 0.94, p = 0.42), happiness (Levene Statistics (3, 295) = 0.87, p = 0.46), and perceived level of organizational support (Levene Statistics (3, 294) = 1.41, p = 0.24) were homogeneous across the functional areas. 77 Table 17
ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Functional Areas
Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square Utrecht Work Engagement Between Groups 4.24 3 1.41 1.73 0.16 Scale (UWES) Within Groups 241.30 295 0.82 Total 245.54 298 Survey of Perceived Between Groups 2.29 3 0.76 0.76 0.52 Organizational Support Within Groups 296.72 294 1.01 (SPOS) Total 299.01 297 Subjective Happiness Between Groups 5.04 3 1.68 1.63 0.18 Scale (SHS) Within Groups 303.83 295 1.03 Total 308.87 298
Table 18
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Functional Areas
Levene df1 df2 Sig. Statistic Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 0.94 3 295 0.42 Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) 1.41 3 294 0.24 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 0.87 3 295 0.46
The ANOVA results to determine whether the levels of student affairs professional’s work engagement, happiness, and perceived level of organizational support significantly differed by their type of institution are presented in Table 19.
78 Table 19
ANOVA Results of Differences of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Type of Institution
Sum of df Mean F Sig. Squares Square Utrecht Work Engagement Between Groups 0.11 2 0.06 0.07 0.93 Scale (UWES) Within Groups 236.61 290 0.82 Total 236.72 292 Survey of Perceived Between Groups 0.55 2 0.28 0.28 0.76 Organizational Support Within Groups 285.55 289 0.99 (SPOS) Total 286.10 291 Subjective Happiness Scale Between Groups 0.12 2 0.06 0.17 0.85 (SHS) Within Groups 103.95 290 0.36 Total 104.07 292 *Significant at level of significance of 0.05
The test of homogeneity of variance or equality of variances in Table 20 showed that the variances of work engagement (Levene Statistic (2, 290) = 0.81, p = 0.44), and happiness (Levene Statistic (2, 290) = 0.17, p = 0.84) were homogeneous across each of the type of institution while perceived level of organizational support (Levene Statistic
(2, 289) = 4.02, p = 0.02) was not.
Table 20
Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Work Engagement, Happiness, and Organizational
Support by Type of Institution
Levene df1 df2 Sig. Statistic Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 0.81 2 290 0.44 Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) 4.02 2 289 0.02 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) 0.17 2 290 0.84
79 The ANOVA does not violate the assumption of homogeneity of variances provided the ratio of the largest group variance or standard deviation is not more than three times the smallest group variance or standard deviation (Kline, 2005). This is the case for the perceived level of organizational support as can be observed in the standard deviation value (SD = 1.00) in Table 2. The result of the ANOVA test showed that only the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(2, 290) = 0.07, p = 0.93), perceived level of organizational support (2F( , 289) = 0.28, p = 0.76), and happiness
(F(2, 290) = 0.17, p = 0.85) did not significantly differed when there are differences in their type of institution.
Summary
This chapter presented the data summary and data analysis including descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and ANOVA to address the eight research questions of this study. The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the extent to which student affairs professionals’ happiness (i.e., well-being) and perceived level of organizational support relates to their engagement at work.
For research questions one to three, results of the descriptive statistics showed that student affairs professionals are moderately engaged at work in their institution; have a moderate level of happiness; and have average scores for perceived level of organizational support indicating that they have neutral perceived levels of organizational support.
For research questions three to six, results of the Pearson correlation analysis showed that work engagement and perceived level of organizational support have a significant positive and moderate relationship, work engagement and happiness have a 80 significant positive and moderate relationship, and perceived level of organizational support and happiness have a significant positive and weak relationship.
For research question seven, the results of the ANOVA showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement for new professionals was significantly related or differed by their intent to stay in the student affairs profession. Mean comparison showed that groups who responded that said “yes” have higher work engagement as compared to those that said “no” and “unsure”.
For research question eight, the results of the ANOVA showed that level of student affairs professional’s work engagement significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in their current position. Student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in their current position have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have lesser number of years in their current position. Level of student affairs professional’s work engagement, perceived level of organizational support, and happiness significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in student affairs. Student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs. Student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher perceived level of organizational support as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs. Student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher level of happiness as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs. 81 Chapter Five concludes this study. Chapter Five contains findings from the study, their relation to the existing literature, implications for action, and recommendations for future research. 82 Chapter 5: Summary
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the research. This study investigated the perceived organizational support, work engagement, and happiness of student affairs professionals. Student affairs bears the important task of supporting students to achieve academic success, as well as develop capacities required by the post-college, adult world—primarily through offering cocurricular programs and services. In order to maximize success, I have argued that employees should experience deep engagement in their work. Previous scholarship suggests that work engagement is bolstered by a combination of environmental factors (e.g., organizational support) and individual or personal factors (e.g., optimism, happiness, etc.). Up to this point work engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support have not been studied for student affairs professionals. The study sample was taken from the American College Personnel
Association membership list, and includes professionals in a variety of different functional areas, including advising, student activities, housing, and other student affairs areas.
The study was broken down into eight research questions, each one examining descriptive data for each variable or the relationship among the variables. In addition to the hypotheses testing, the results showed that the participants had a moderate level of work engagement and subjective happiness while having a neutral level of perceived organizational support.
83 Discussion
Research question one. The purpose of research question one was to evaluate the level of engagement as measured by the UWES of student affairs professionals. The overall mean score for the survey respondents was 4.42. The highest score possible is six.
This means that the student affairs professional are moderately engaged at work in their institution. Blessing White (2008) found that about 80% of employees were not engaged.
Given the score of these respondents, the same thing may not be true for student affairs professionals.
Student affairs professionals represent the highest group of engaged employees found in the UWES manual with a mean score of 4.42 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006), and managers with a mean score of 4.22. Older employees tend to feel more engaged but the percentage of shared variance is small (Table 17). The other occupational groups completed the UWES-15 while the participants in this study completed the UWES-9. The scores are comparable since the average scores are obtained.
Table 21
Comparison of Work Engagement
Occupational Group N Mean SD Student affairs professionals 299 4.42 0.90 Managers 635 4.22 1.00 White collar workers 1,826 3.97 1.12 Blue collar workers 376 3.63 1.24 Physicians 655 3.10 0.87
Research question two. The purpose of research question two was to evaluate the level of happiness of student affairs professionals. The overall mean score for the survey respondents was 5.38. The highest score possible is 7. Lyubomirsky and Lepper 84 (1997) conducted a study examining subjective happiness and found that the mean score for U.S. adults living in a city community was 5.62 A study found that when high-level managers voluntarily moved for a promotion or better location, their satisfaction dropped within a year, thus reminding us about the hedonic treadmill (Boswell, Boudreaum &
Tichy, 2005)—that is the tendency for the level of well-being to habituate or return to a normal level at some point in time after experiencing either a very positive or negative life event. This may also explain the high level of happiness of professionals that have been in the field for a year or less.
Research question three. The purpose of research question three was to evaluate the level of perceived organizational support for student affairs professionals. The overall mean score for the survey respondents was 3.74. The highest score possible is 6. No student affairs professionals in the sample had a score of 6. In a 1990 study, Eisenberger,
Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) found that high school teachers scored a mean of
3.70, brokerage firm clerks scored 4.29, manufacturing workers scored 3.86, and university resident assistants scored 5.35. It’s interesting to consider the high score of resident assistants as these are individuals that would be supervised by some of the participants of this study. The score of 3.74 represents an average score between “neither agree or disagree” and “slightly agree.”
Research question four. The purpose of research question four was to evaluate the relationship between the perceived level of organizational support and work engagement. Based on the results of the Pearson correlation analysis, it was determined that there is a significant positive and moderately strong relationship between work engagement and perceived level of organizational support. Given the low average score 85 of perceived organizational support for the participants, increasing engagement could increase the level of perceived organizational support. As discussed earlier, engaged employees are more productive, profitable, create stronger customer relationships and retain their employment (Gallup, 2007).
Research question five. The purpose of research question five was to evaluate the relationship between the happiness and work engagement of student affairs professionals. Based on the results of the Pearson correlation analysis, it was determined that there is a significant positive and moderately strong relationship between happiness and work engagement. This supports previous research that individuals with high levels of engagement perceive their work environment as positive (Bakker, 2001; Tims &
Bakker, 2010). In this study, the happier a survey respondent, the more they experience work engagement. Employees can become engaged when they find meaning in their work, feel safe to do good work, and can then transfer their energy into performance
(Harter & Blacksmith, 2010).
Research question six. The purpose of research question six is to evaluate the contribution of the perceived level of organizational support to happiness and engagement. Based on the results of the Pearson correlation analysis, it was determined that perceived level of organizational support have moderately strong levels of correlation with both happiness and work engagement.
Research question seven. The purpose of research question seven was to examine the intent to stay of new professionals with regard to work engagement. The ANOVA results showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement was significantly related with their intent to stay in the student affairs profession. Though the 86 average score did differ between the 3 groups of intent to stay, “yes” (4.53), “no” (3.90), and “unsure” (4.11), these engagement scores were not significantly different. Those student affairs professionals who intended to stay in the student affairs profession did report higher work engagement as compared to those who do not intend to stay in the student affairs profession and also higher as compared to those who were unsure about staying in the student affairs profession. It is not surprising that the UWES scores decrease as participants respond with yes to no to unsure with the unsure group having the lowest score. A one-way ANOVA was also conducted to determine the relationship of level of student affairs professional’s work engagement and intent to stay in the student affairs profession for all the participants. The result of the ANOVA test showed that the level of student affairs professional’s work engagement (F(1, 299) = 27.07, p <
0.001) was significantly related or differed by their intent to stay in the student affairs profession. The post-hoc test showed that the student affairs professionals who said “yes” that they intend to stay in the student affairs profession have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who said “no” or those who do not intend to stay in the student affairs profession (Mean difference = 0.68) and also higher as compared to those who said “unsure” or those who were not sure to stay in the student affairs profession
(Mean difference = 0.62). This may be an opportunity to increase the engagement of the young professionals, which could result in employee retention. Bender (1980) found that
31% of young professionals in student affairs that were aged 23-36 years old did not intend to stay in the field and 41% were undecided. That represented 72% of the population in his study.
87 Research question eight. The analyses in research question eight were designed to evaluate whether the level of engagement as measured by the UWES, the level of happiness as measured by the Subjective Happiness Scale, and the perceived level of organizational support for student affairs professionals as measured by SPOS differed by gender, the numbers of years in the current position and in student affairs, functional area, or institutional type. This was addressed using ANOVA.
In the 2006 book, Where You Work Matters, Joan Hirt discussed the differences across institutions in regards to aspects such as the nature of the campus and the work.
While she discovered many differences across institutions, this study did not find significant differences between institution types based on happiness, engagement, or perceived organizational support. With regard to function type and gender, there was no significant difference as well. The results of the ANOVA showed that level of work engagement, perceived level of organizational support, and happiness did not significantly differ when there are differences in the gender, institution type and functional areas the student affairs professionals are assigned in their work.
When looking at engagement, happiness, and organizational support in regard to years in current position, the ANOVA showed that only the level of work engagement significantly differed when there are differences in the number of years in their current position. The results suggested that the student affairs professionals who have higher number of years in their current position have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have fewer years in their current position. Engagement takes more time, requires engagement of one’s strengths and results in a sense of gratification
(Seligman, 2002). People become more engaged in their work if they stay a longer 88 duration in their current workplace. Also, there were no differences in regards to happiness or organizational support according to the number of years in their current position.
When considering total years spent in student affairs, there were significant differences among work engagement, happiness, and organizational support. Even though the sample size was small for the 31 years or more in student affairs with 19, I decided to include these results given their significance as it clearly demonstrates a need for more research in this area. ANOVA results showed that the student affairs professionals who have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher work engagement as compared to those who have fewer number of years in student affairs; student affairs professionals that have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher perceived level of organizational support as compared to those who have lesser number of years in student affairs; and student affairs professionals who have higher number of years in student affairs have significantly higher level of happiness as compared to those who have fewer number of years in student affairs.
Participants who had been in the field longer indicated increased organizational support and an increase in the level of happiness. One could assume that older respondents serve in upper-level positions allowing them more autonomy among other gains that contributes to the increase. Research has also shown that older individuals tend to be happier (Deci & Ryan, 2008). There is reason to believe that trust is a reason for increase in happiness. Some studies have found that individuals are happier after they have accomplished their major goals. This could be a reason that student affairs professionals are happier after being the field for some time. They may finally be in the 89 position where they feel accomplished. For perceived organizational support, in the work of student affairs, it seems that the ability to see the “bigger picture” is important as many decisions have a lasting effect (Fredrickson, 2009). Student affairs professionals would realize the perceived support of the organization after they have gained more experience as student affairs professionals. Incorporating positivity or already having this trait may produce better decisions made by student affairs professionals (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). Creating a supportive learning environment is at the core of student affairs work.
Boehman (2007) found that a supportive environment can increase the attachment to an institution for student affairs professionals.
The research from this study fits in both the literature on student affairs staffing and in the literature on employee well-being. It is the first study to bring together these two areas.
Outcomes of perceived organizational support. When employees perceive they have organizational support, they tend to care more about the organization, be more satisfied with their jobs, experience less stress, and feel more commitment to the organization (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). There are three approaches that can contribute to increased perceived organizational support: create a more supportive culture, train supervisors to be more supportive, or supervisors can utilize supportive behaviors and create human resource policies that foster support. Eisenberger and
Stinglhamber (2011) listed some behaviors that supervisors can utilize. Strategies include: treating applicants fairly; ensuring open channels of communication; providing generous performance rewards; providing professional development that attends to both immediate work skill and long term career and personal development needs; 90 communicating clearly when delegating work tasks; providing job security; and safeguarding employee autonomy. These behaviors are likely to lead to a culture of organizational support. Having a supportive culture is both a matter of perception and reality. To achieve a culture of support, actions such as those mentioned by Eisenberger and Stinglhamber must be imbedded in management and employee practices throughout the organization.
This study found that perceived organization support was correlated with work engagement; thus, it would behoove leaders to invest in organizational support. Overall, perceived organizational support is an area that needs improvement in student affairs. Of the variables, organizational support had the lowest score and was the only area where the maximum for the sample was not the highest score possible.
Happiness and other emotions. Although employee happiness and happiness in general can be a motivating factor for overall satisfaction, it is important to recognize that negative emotions can also fuel creativity, create focus, and establish emotional agility
(Kashdan & Biswas-Diener, 2014). Doubt helps to improve deficiency in areas while boredom helps individuals discern their interests and passions. Interestingly enough, some emotions can incite different types of productivity. A study found that while having a happy leader, a group performed 200% better on a creative task but having an unhappy leader for an analytical task resulted in a 400% better result (Kashdan & Biswas-Diener,
2014). An interesting study by Forgas and East (2008) found that mood has an influence on the ability for someone to accurately evaluate another’s communication. Specifically, those with a positive mood were unable to judge deception. Given the work of some student affairs professionals, such as those who work in the area of student conduct or 91 residence life, being able to discern the communication of others can be essential. Happy people may be more gullible.
Practical Implications
The research of employee engagement is still in early stages but there are areas of promise for improvement. Institutions should implement programs that develop the overall happiness of their professionals, as well as the perceived organizational support as both have an impact on employee engagement in the workplace.
Institutions can start by asking their professionals about the things that are needed to be more productive and engaged. A useful intervention for employee engagement and perceived organizational support is an employee survey. Asking employees what they need is something often overlooked but is effective and costs nothing. Companies like
Google allow employees to spend 20% of their time on a project of their choosing. Job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) may be an option for some supervisors to explore. This process allows an employee to shape the tasks involved with their work.
This may alter the perceived significance of the work and also lead to more meaningful work. Institutions need to create ways for employees to feel supported and valued as this will increase self-efficacy. Increased self-efficacy was found to mediate the relationship of perceived organizational support and work engagement by Caesens and Stinglhamber
(2014).
Institutions of higher education are equipped with some amenities that could make the work environment friendlier, such as free or discounted meals at the dining hall or free memberships to the college fitness center. Institutions could even provide programs at little to no cost that encourage employees to keep gratitude journals which 92 studies have shown increase the level of happiness for an individual. A supervisor could implement structured journaling to allow employees time to reflect. This study demonstrated that a happier employee is a more engaged employee. Supervisors can implement activities to improve happiness.
Kerry Hannon (2015) writes about the “HOVER” approach in the book, Love
Your Job: The New Rules for Career Happiness to assist employees in making changes that can increase career happiness. The approach looks at hope, optimism, value, enthusiasm, and resilience. The author also speaks at length about resilience and the value of building resilience for employees. Hannon (2015) explores extracurricular activities with coworkers that may help increase career happiness such as a book club, fitness classes, or an organized team sport. Hannon also recommends involvement in activities that don’t have to involve coworkers such as engagement in a professional association, participation in a nonprofit board, or involvement in alumni associations.
A flexible work schedule is employed by many places of employment, including institutions of higher education. Flexible work schedule can be allowing employees to select start and stop times, telecommuting, or working from home. A flexible work schedule requires trust which can be a challenge for some but trust increases engagement.
Employees have four core needs that if met can increase satisfaction and productivity: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual (Schwartz, 2010). Physical provides the foundation comprised of sleep, fitness, nutrition, and rest- methods to recharge and renew. While the emotional taps into emotions that are conducive to high performance such as feeling valued and appreciated. The mental need is all about focus and the ability to mediate between types of thinking. Spiritual is a word not typically 93 associated with work but has great value for engagement and energy and serving a higher purpose on at work. These core needs may not seem practical for an institution of higher education, but practical examples include setting time limits to meetings, timelines for email communication, free or discounted membership to fitness center; these are all examples that meet those core needs.
Institutions need to increase their perceived organizational support. This increase can increase employee engagement. In 2011, Eisenberger and Stinglhamber recommended that reinforcing employees’ intrinsic interest in their task would demonstrate perceived organizational support, thus increasing work engagement.
Research conducted by the Energy Project found that employees who take a break every 90 minutes report a substantial higher level of focus compared to those who take no breaks or just one. The project also found that lack of recognition and feedback from a supervisor contributes to work-related stress.
Provide a career coach for employees. Coaches can assist employees with self- esteem/confidence, managing work-life balance and management strategies. Also continued work training can help employees feel more committed and excited about their jobs.
Future Research
This study did not look individually at the dimensions of employee engagement
(vigor, absorption, and dedication) to investigate if one element has more influence than another. A study conducted by Gokul, Sridevi, and Srinvasan (2012) found the dimension of dedication has the most impact on the commitment the individual had for their organization. This could be examined for student affairs professionals. 94 This study examined the engagement, happiness, and perceived organizational support of student affairs professionals but it would be helpful to more closely examine the actions or the behaviors that increase these variables. It would be helpful to know specifically what factors an institution can change or modify to increase all three of these variables. The group that has been in student affairs the greatest amount of time had the highest level of happiness, engagement and perceived organizational support. This group needs to be examined more in depth. It could be possible that those who stay in student affairs are staying because they are engaged, happy, or have the support necessary to succeed. These individuals could also be in higher level administrative positions which could also account for the survey results. This group needs to be examined to discern possible factors of influence.
This quantitative study explored the dimensions of employee engagement, subjective happiness, and perceived organizational supported as defined by the instruments used. A qualitative study on the same topics could illuminate particular aspects such as specific work environments in student affairs that would increase engagement, happiness, and organizational support.
Future research could also include a study that measured student affairs staff members’ discourse (e.g., positive and negative), their conscious discipline in engaging in negative versus positive discussions with colleagues, family and friends concerning their work and comparing those narrative choices based on their overall work satisfaction and engagement. This study could reveal how personal choices employees make regarding how they discuss their work affects their work experience. This could be helpful in professional preparation and employee training. 95 One way to increase employee engagement is through leadership styles used by supervisors or organizational leaders keeping in mind that engagement varies by employee and organization. Transactional leadership (Bass, 1985) considers the needs of the followers as well as their own needs when making decision. They typically tell a follower what to do. In contrast, a transformational leader inspires and motivates a follower to achieve more without prescribing how their work should be accomplished.
Using these two leadership styles together, Avolio (1999) developed a new model called the full range model. The full range model considers both the individual and the situation.
No evidence has been found that full range leadership related to engagement but research has been done to show that transformational leadership is positively related to employee engagement (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012). A study conducted in 2010 by
Brown and May demonstrated that transformational leadership characteristics can not only be taught but result in positive changes for organizations. Leadership styles should be explored for student affairs professionals.
Conclusion
One major finding for this study posits that the staff within the sample of student affairs professionals who had a high level of work engagement more often responded yes to the intent to stay question. This is an important finding as keeping a good employee is more cost effective and lends to the consistency often needed in student affairs. Those with fewer years in student affairs indicated a lower level of engagement. This is important to recognize as institutions work to retain and train staff. Even though student affairs professionals report a high level of work engagement in comparison to other fields
(Table 21), the population sample did not overwhelmingly plan to stay in the field of 96 student affairs through retirement. A supportive environment may increase the attachment to an institution for student affairs’ professionals (Boehman, 2007) as a low score was found in this study for perceived organizational support. A positive relationship was found between perceived organizational support and happiness. This may be an opportunity for the profession. Looking for ways to increase happiness may impact the perceived level of organizational support. On the flip side, increasing organizational support may increase happiness; examples of ways to promote and provide organizational support were provided in this chapter.
Ideally, engaged student affairs professionals would want to stay in the field. It is important, then, to look more deeply at the retention of staff and, particularly, at approaches to mitigate the turnover of engaged professionals. Those who have been in student affairs the most number of years have increased happiness, organizational support, and work engagement. It would be interesting to investigate this specific group.
The “more seasoned” professional may be able to offer more specific guidance to younger staff with regards to experience and lessons learned.
These findings add to the literature on overall employee wellbeing and employee engagement. Furthermore, it provides insight into the work experience of student affairs professionals with regard to years of experience, functional area, and institution type.
97 References
American College Personnel Association. (1996). The student learning imperative:
Implications for student affairs. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from
http://www.acpa.nche.edu/sli/sli.htm
American College Personnel Association. (n.d.).Who we are. Retrieved September 1,
2011 from http://www.myacpa.org/who-we-are
Anderson, J. E. (1998). A comparison of female and male senior student affairs officers’
job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and inter-role conflict. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies,
University of Northern Colorado.
Aquino, K., & Griffeth, R. W. (1999). An exploration of the antecedents and
consequences of perceived organizational support: A longitudinal study.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational
support and police performance: the moderating influence of socioemotional
needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 288. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.83.2.288
Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2007). The Clifton StrengthsFinder
2.0 technical report: Development and validation. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup
Organization.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. New York: Sage. 98 Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational
leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and
moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25. doi:
10.1080/08959285.2011.631648
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of
peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26-44.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001
Bakker, A. B. (2008). Building engagement in the workplace. In C. Cooper & R. Burke
(Eds.), The peak performing organization. New York: Routledge.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
Bakker, A. B., Gierveld, J. H., & Van Rijswijk, K. (2006). Success factors among female
school principals in primary teaching: A study of burnout, work engagement and
performance. Right Management Consultants, Diemen.
Barsade, S. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-77. doi: 10.2307/3094912
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18(2), 2-9. doi:
10.1080/00220973.1980.11071773
Berwick, K. R. (1992). Stress among student affairs administrators: The relationship of
personal characteristics and organizational variables to work-related stress. 99 Journal of College Student Development, 33, 11-19. doi:
10.1023/B:SERS.0000037760.64813.0b
Blackhurst, A., Brandt, J., & Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of personal and work-related
attributes in the organizational commitment and life satisfaction of women student
affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 35, 86–99. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1045
Blessing White (2008). The state of employment engagement—2008: North American
overview. Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from
http://wwwblessingwhite.com/rsearch.asp?pid=1
Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1999). Good practice in student affairs:
Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloland, P. A., Stamatakos, L.C., & Rogers, R. R. (1994). Reform in student affairs: A
critique of student development. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student
Services Clearinghouse.
Boehman, J. (2007). Affective commitment among student affairs professionals. NASPA
Journal, 44(2), 307-326. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1797
Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness lead to career success? Journal
of Career Assessment, 16, 101-116. doi: 10.1177/1069072707308140
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee
job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 882-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.882
Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Outreach, 1(1), 11-
20.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. 100 Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident
victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
917-927. doi:10.1037/00223514.36.8.917
Brown, F. W, & May, D. R. (2010). Organizational change and development: The
efficacy of transformational leadership training. Journal of Management, 28(10),
914-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211230830
Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived
organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its
outcomes. Impact Factor, 52, 713-722. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211230830.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & R. E.Quinn (2003). Foundations of positive
organizational scholarship. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Clifton, D. O., & Rath, T., (2004). How full is your bucket?: Positive strategies for work
and life. New York: Gallup Press.
Conley, V. M. (2001). Separation: An internal aspect of the staffing process. College
Student Affairs Journal, 21(1), 57-63.
Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Corporate Leadership Council (2004). Driving performance and retention through
employee engagement. Retrieved from 101 https://www.stcloudstate.edu/humanresources/_files/documents/supv-brown-
bag/employee-engagement.pdf
Cote, S. (1999). Effect and performance in organizational settings. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 65-68. doi: 10.1007/s10902-008-9087-4
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (1999). A five-year study of the relationship between
well-being and performance. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 51, 252-265. doi:
10.1037/1061-4087.51.4.252
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement and everyday
life. New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of
meaning. New York: Penguin Books.
Dalai Lama & Cutler, H. C. (2003). The art of happiness at work. New York: Riverhead
Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and the well-being: An
introduction. Journal of Happiness, 9, 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–
512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being, the science of happiness and a proposal for a
national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.34 102 Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of
psychological wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Donovan, M.A. (2000). Cognitive, affective, and satisfaction variables as predictors of
organizational behaviors: A structure equation modeling examination of
alternative models. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (9-B), 4943.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. doi:
10.1177/0149206315575554
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering
enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Books.
Fields, B., Wilder, S., Bunch, J., & Newbold, R. (2008). Millennial leaders: Success
stories from today’s most brilliant generation Y leaders. Garden City, NY:
Morgan James Publishing.
Forgas, J. P. & East, R. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism
and the detection of deception, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
1362-1367. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 103 Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-
226. doi: 10.1037/10003~066X.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S.
Cameron, J. E. Duton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163-175). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace
the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New
York: Crown.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Unpacking positive organizing: Organizations
as sites of individual and group flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
3(1), 1-3. doi: 10.1080/17439760701750964
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175. doi: 10.1111/1467-
9280.00431
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of
human flourishing. merican Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.60.7.678
Frisch, M. B., Clark, M. P., Rouse, S. V., Rudd, M. D., Paweleck, J. K., & Greenstone,
A. (2004). Predictive and treatment validity of life satisfaction and the Quality of
Life Inventory. Assessment, 10, 1-13. doi: 10.1177/1073191104268006.
Gallup. (2007). Why people leave companies: A comprehensive review of Gallup’s
database. Summary of studies. 104 George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of
customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 778-794. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01775.x
Gokul, A., Sridevi, G., & Srinivasan, P. T. (2012). The relationship between perceived
organizational support, work engagement, and affective commitment. AMET
International Journal of Management, 29-37. doi: 10.1177/1059601112457200
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital
processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, J. K., & Blacksmith, N. (2010). Employee engagement and the psychology of
joining, staying in and leaving organizations. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N.
Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work (pp. 121-130).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Validation of a performance-related and
actionable management tool: A meta-analysis and utility analysis. Lincoln, NE:
Gallup Technical Report.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of Gallup studies. In C.L. Keyes & J.
Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 205-
224). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. 105 Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being:
Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 731-739. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.062
Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different
types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Iverson, R. D., Olekalns, M., & Erwin, P. J. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors,
and absenteeism: A casual model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 52, 1-23. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1556
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.
New York: Cambridge.
Jansen, K, & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-
environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 193-212.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (1998). College and university mid-level administrators:
Explaining and improving their morale. Review of Higher Education, 22(2). doi:
10.1023/A:1014845218989
Juszkiewicz, P. J., Arora, R., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Utility analysis of Gallup SRI
assessments. Gallup Technical Report. Omaha, NE.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. doi:
10.2307/256287
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integrated approach. New York: Praeger
Publishers. 106 Kashdan, R. & Biswas-Diener, T. (2014). The upside of your dark side. New York:
Plume.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in
life. Journal of Health and Behavior, 43, 207-222. doi: 10.1007/s10804-009-
9082-y.
Keyes, C., Hysom, S., & Lupo, K. (2000). The positive organization: Leadership
legitimacy, employee well-being, and the bottom line. The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, 4, 143-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0095888
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and
organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–
1079. doi: 10.1177/0013164488484024
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-
49. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges:
Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development
outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LeFevre, J. (1988). Flow and the quality of experience during work and leisure. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 307-318). New York:
Cambridge University. 107 Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical
investigation of Steers and Mowday’s Model of Turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 30(4), 721-743. doi: 10.2307/256157
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3).
doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1049
Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Mathematical
and Computer Modeling, 30(9-10), 179-192. doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(99)00189-
2
Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness: A new approach to getting the life you
want. New York: Penguin.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Work may hold the key to your happiness. Retrieved from
http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/wpcontent/themes/sonjalyubomirsky/papers/L2008J
an.pdf
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators, 46(2), 137-155.
doi: 10.1023/A:1006824100041
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The
architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(11), 1-31.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2006). One size does not fit all: Traditional and
innovative models to student affairs practice. New York: Routledge.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause
personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 108 Meere, M. (2005). High cost of disengaged employees. Victoria: Swinburne University of
Technology.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder &
S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89-105). New York:
Oxford University.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (n.d.). Principles of good
practice for student affairs. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from
http://www.naspa.org/career/goodprac.cfm
Nobbe, J., & Manning, S. (1997). Issues for women in student affairs with children.
NASAP Journal, 34, 101-111. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Handbook of occupation health psychology.
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organization support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. doi: 10.1037//0021-
9010.87.4.698
Rothman, S., & Storm, K. (2003, May). Work engagement in the South African police
service. Paper presented at the meeting of the 11th European Congress of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rudolf, F. (1962, 1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens,
Georgia: University of Georgia Press. 109 Sandeen, A. (2004). Educating the whole student: The growing academic importance of
student affairs. Change, 36, 3. doi: 10.1080/00091380409605577
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale. Utrecht,
Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonza’lez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B., & (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3: 71-92.
Schwartz, T. (2010). The way we’re working isn’t working. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998, October). What is the ‘good life’? APA Monitor, 2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14779961211210630
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to
realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). The past and future of positive psychology. In C. M. Keyes &
J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp.xi-
xx). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli,
W. (2008). The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale:
Mulitsample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Study, 10, 459-481.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y 110 Shore, L.M., & Shore, T.H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational
justice. In Cropanzano, R.S. & K.M. Kacmar (Eds.). Organizational politics,
justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace, 149-164.
Westport, CT: Quorum.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 637–643.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2009). Positive engagement: From employee engagement to
workplace happiness. In A.P. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford
Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work (pp. 155-173). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Starritt, N., & Klein, D. (2004). New research underlines the link between diversity and
productivity. Sirota Diversity Report, 505. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2104
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the
sadder-but-wiser vs happier-and smarter hypothesis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, 304-331. doi: 10.2307/2393415
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and
favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71. doi:
10.1287/orsc.5.1.51 111 Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of leader’s effect
on group member affect and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
295-305. doi: 10.1037/apl0000052
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job
redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. doi:
10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Towers Perrin (2006). Ten steps to creating an engaged workforce. Towers Perrin Global
Workforce Survey. Retrieved from http://www.towersperrin.com/gws
Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K.., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006). Working
life: Employee attitudes and engagement 2006. London: CIPD.
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). American Time
Use Survey-2008 results. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved on October 15, 2009 from http://www.bls.gov/tus
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-
Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to
work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 52, 219-230. doi:
10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.219
Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. London: Psychology Press.
Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work
environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development
International, 12(2) 150-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430710733631 112 Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063-1070. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.84
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two
longitudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 1-23. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199901)20:1
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K.S. Cameron, J.E.
Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations
for a New Discipline (pp. 296-308). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as
active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of
Stress Management, 14, 121-141. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Fischbach, A. (2013). Work engagement among
employees facing emotional demands. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 74-
84. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000085
Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., & Jenkins, D.A. (2008). The happy-productive worker
thesis revisited. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 521-537. doi: 10.1007/s10902-
008-9087-4
113 Appendix A: Sample Participant Cover Letter
Dear ACPA Member,
I am a doctoral student in the Higher Education program at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. I am conducting dissertation research examining the organizational support of student affairs professionals and their level of work engagement and happiness. The study of happiness and work engagement is fairly new in general and has not been examined for student affairs professionals. The results of this study will hopefully improve the engagement of student affairs professionals in the work environment. It is my understanding that you are currently a staff member at an institution in the United States and a member of the ACPA organization.
I am interested in your experience in your current position and would be grateful if you would complete the enclosed survey. The items in the questionnaire focus on your experience with your institution as well as your current level of work engagement and general feeling of happiness. Completion of the survey should take about 20 minutes. There are no known or anticipated risks to participation in this study. Participation in this project is voluntary and anonymous. Further, all information you provide will be considered confidential.
I want to stress that your participation in this study is voluntary and all efforts to protect your identity and keeping the information confidential will be taken. I look forward to learning about your experiences in the field of student affairs. Your participation will be greatly appreciated. Please contact me via email at [email protected] for any questions. If you are willing to participate, please click on this link.
All the Best,
Michele Sheets
*This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of OU. 114
Appendix B: Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support Survey
Demographic Information Gender: □ Female □ Male □ Transgender □ Prefer not to answer Current Age: □20-24 □25-29 □30-34 □35-39 □40-44 □45-49 □50-54 □55-59 □ 60-64 □65+ Number of years (including the current year) in current position: Number of years (including the current year) working in student affairs: Is this your first professional job in student affairs? Yes No Unsure Do you intend to stay in the student affairs profession through retirement? Yes No Unsure Type of Institution in which you work: □ Public, 4 year □ Private, 4 year □ Public, 2 year □ Private, 2 year □ Other In which functional area or office do you work? For example, housing, student activities, registrar, career services, orientation, etc. (You may list more than one): ______
Work & Well-being Survey (UWES) ©
The following 9 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, place a ‘0’ (zero) in the space before the statement. If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you feel it by placing the number (from 1 to 6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way. 115 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Almost Very Never- Rarely- Sometime Often- Often- A Always- Few Once a s- A Few Never Once a Few Every Times a Month or Times a Week Times a Day Year or Less Month Week less
1. ____ At my work, I feel bursting with energy 2. ____ At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 3. ____ I am enthusiastic about my job 4. ____ My job inspires me 5. ____When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work 6. ____ I feel happy when I am working intensely 7. ____ I am proud on the work that I do 8. ____ I am immersed in my work 9. ____ I get carried away when I’m working © Schaufeli & Bakker (2003).
Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) © Listed below are 36 statements that represent possible opinions that you may have about working at your current institution. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by writing the appropriate number to the left of the statement. Please be sure to answer every statement using the following options:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Neither Strongly Moderatel Slightly Slightly Moderatel Strongly Agree nor Disagree y Disagree Disagree Agree y Agree Agree Disagree
116
1. ____ My institution values my contribution to its well-being. 2. ____ If my institution could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary it would do so. 3. ____ My institution fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R) 4. ____ My institution strongly considers my goals and values. 5. ____ My institution would understand a long absence due to my illness. 6. ____ My institution would ignore any complaint from me. (R) 7. ____ My institution disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me. (R) 8. ____ Help is available from my institution when I have a problem. 9. ____ My institution really cares about my well-being. 10. ____ My institution is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability. 11. ____ My institution would fail to understand my absence due to a personal problem. (R) 12. ____ If my institution found a more efficient way to get my job done they would replace me. (R) 13. ____ My institution would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 14. ____ It would take only a small decrease in my performance for my institution to want to replace me. (R) 15. ____ My institution fe els there is little to be gained by employing me for the rest of my career. (R) 16. ____ My institution provides me little opportunity to move up the ranks. (R) 17. ____ Even if I did the best job possible, my institution would fail to notice. (R) 18. ____ My institution would grant a reasonable request for a change in my working conditions. 19. ____ If I were laid off, my institution would prefer to hire someone new rather than take me back. (R) 20. ___ My institution is willing to help me when I need a special favor. 21. ___ My institution cares about my general satisfaction at work. 22. ____ If given the opportunity, my institution wo uld take advantage of me. (R) 23. ____ My institution shows very little concern for me. (R) 24. ____ If I decided to quit, my institution would try to persuade me to stay. 25. ____ My institution cares about my opinions. 26. ____ My institution feels that hiring me was a definite mistake. (R) 27. ____ My institution takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 28. ____ My institution cares more about making a profit than about me. (R) 29. ____ My institution would understand if I were unable to finish a task on time. 30. ____ If my institution earned a greater profit, it would consider increasing my salary. 31. ____ My institution feels that anyone could perform my job as well as I do. (R) 32. ____ My institution is unconcerned about paying me what I deserve. (R) 33. ____ My institution wishes to give me the best possible job for which I am qualified. 34. ____ If my job were eliminated, my institution would prefer to lay me off rather than transfer me to a new job. (R) 117
35. ____ My institution tries to make my job as interesting as possible. 36. ____ My supervisors are proud that I am a part of this organization.
(R) indicates the item is reverse score.
Subjective Happiness Scale Please circle the number in the range that best represents your response. 1. In general, I consider myself: (not a very happy person) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a very happy person) 2. Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself: (less happy) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (more happy) 3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extend does this characterization describe you? (not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a great deal)
4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be. To what extend does this characterization describe you? (a great deal) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (not at all)
118
Appendix C: Scatterplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support
119
Appendix D: Histogram of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support
120
Appendix E: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support by Gender
121
Appendix F: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support by Age
122
Appendix G: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support by Number of Years in Current Position
123
Appendix H: Boxplot of Student Affairs Happiness, Work Engagement, &
Organizational Support by Number of Years in Student Affairs
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !