INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directfy fit>m the origmal or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be fi"om aity tyrpe o f com puter printer.
The qualityr of this reprodaction Is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, b%inning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
JOB SATISFACTION AND WORK COMMITMENT
AMONG JAPANESE AND AMERICAN COLLEGIATE COACHES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State Uhiversi^
By
Etsuko Ogasawara
*****
The Ohio State University
1997
Dissertation Committee;
Dr. P. Chelladuiai, Advisor ^ p r o v e d by
Dr. Dennis Howard
Dr. Donna Pastore Advisor C ollie of Education UMI Number: 9801751
UMI Microform 9801751 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 ABSTRACT
The primary purposes o f this study were to (a) investigate the dimensionality of job satisfaction among Japanese and American collegiate coaches and to develop a psychometrically sound scale o f satisfaction in coaching, (b) identify significant differences among Division I, Division m, and Japanese coaches in their job satisAction and organizational and occupational commitments, and (c) explore the relationships between &cets o f satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational commitments. A set of satisfaction facets and items were culled fi*om the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofipiist, 1967), the Job
Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and the Athlete Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Riemer, 1995). In addition, the investigators generated several hems. A panel of experts, including coaches, and professors and doctoral students in sport management, scrutinized and provided feedback on the identified Acets and the corresponding items. The final questionnaire contained 81 items measuring various facets of job satisfaction. In the second stage, the English version was translated into the
Japanese language by three bilingual experts, and back translated into English by three other bilingual experts. The Japanese version was finalized after consultations among the investigators and translators. In the final phase, data fi'om 271 coaches fi’om Japanese universities, 432 coaches fi’om Division I universities and 468 coaches fi'om Division m in America were collected. The three sets of data were subjected to principal component analyses, and 11 meaningful common factors were selected from the frictor solutions of these three sets of data. The choice of items to represent a selected factor was based on their high loadings on the same factor in all three data sets. This process allowed comparability of the measures of job satisfaction of coaches from the two countries.
Of the selected 11 factors, seven (supervision, coaching job, autonomy, pay, amount of work, colleagues, and job security) are conceptually similar to the satisfaction facets identified in other contexts, while four facets of satisfaction (facilities, media and community support, team performance, and athlete’s academic progress) are unique to the coaching context.
The grouping variable (Division I, Division HI, and Japanese coaches) had a significant multivariate effect on the 11 subscales of satisfaction (Wilk’s lambda =
.547; F (22, 2278) = 36.40, p < .001). The Japanese coaches scored significantly lower than the American coaches in 7 of 11 facets. This result was consistent with previous studies that had shown that the Japanese workers tend to score lower on job satisfaction than their counterparts in other countries.
Coaches’ commitment to their organization, their occupation, and their job involvement was measured by Blau, Paul, & St. John’s (1993) General Index of Work
Commitment which contained 31 items to measure four facets of work commitment- organizational commitment, occupational commitment, job involvement, and value of work. The multivariate ANOVA showed that the grouping variable had a significant effect on four work commitment factors (Wilk’s lambda = .915; F (8,2326) = 13.28,
lU g < .001). The American coaches tended to be more committed to their occupation than the Japanese coaches who were more committed to their organizations than the American coaches. Further, both the American and Japanese coaches were more committed to their occupation than to their respective organizations. Finally, almost all of the facets of satisfaction were significantly correlated with both organizational commitment and occupational commitment. These results were further elaborated and discussed.
IV Dedicated to my parents ACKNOWLEDŒMENTS
Here, I would like to express my gratitude for those who made this work possible.
First I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee. Dr.
Chelladurai, Dr. Pastore, and Dr. Howard. My greatest thanks goes to my advisor Dr.
Chelladurai, “Chella,” who is a great scholar as well as mentor. Chella’s encouragement for the last four years has supported me greatly and instilled strong courage in me. I’ve learned the importance of providing individual attention to students, having been blessed by such attention. Dr. Pastore has enlightened me how to live through academic life successfully as a female researcher. I would never have had a chance to come to the
Ohio State University to pursue a doctoral degree had I not met her. Dr. Howard gave me sage and timely advice, which inspired me and expanded the scope of my dissertation.
I was lucky to have a team of hard woddng colleagues and friends. Thanks goes to Dr. Munehiko Harada, Dr. Hideo Kikuchi, Dr. Yasuo Yamaguchi, Dr. Kagemoto
Yuasa, Professor Shigeto Sonoda, Professor Kazuko Nfiyashita, Mrs. Jo Ann Kozuma,
Ms. Yuko Okutsu, and Ms. Kayoko Akiyoshi, who all helped me in the translation of my questionnaire. Thanks also goes to Professor Masashi Kawanishi, Ifirotaka Matsuoka,
Kimiko Nishina, Azusa Ishibashi, Masashi N%ai, hfrka Amenomori, Mariko Utsu,
Shinichi Nakane, Mrs. Giga, hfr. & Nfrs. Dceda, Hisayo Yoshida, Mr. & Nfrs. Otomo,
Tomoko Matsuoka, Jim Eguchi, and Kiyoe Harada, who all were willing to sacrifice their vi precious time and energy for my research, having been centrally involved in the preparation, data collection, scoring and analyzing of results. Sara Sussldnd was very helpful in the design and layout of my questionnaire. Dr. Susan Moss, my English teacher and friend, has taught me the attitude I take as a doctoral student. They all have my deepest respect and appreciation.
Aside firom the U.S. section of my research, there were those in Japan to whom I am also much indebted. There have been frequent international telephone calls, fax messages, and e-mail communication to and from Japan for two months, through which I could get full support fi'om Mr. Hajime Matsubayashi. Without his support, there would not have been the Japanese section in my dissertatioiL Professor Tsutomu Yatsushiro gave me valuable suggestions on the research. The Nfizuno Sports Foundation offered s much appreciated grant for my research.
Special thanks are extended to Shinji and Fumiyo Aoki, who helped me at various moments of my life in Columbus. Especially, to Fumiyo, without whose encouragement I could not have completed my doctoral studies.
Finally, I must thank my parents, Kazuo and Emiko Ogasawara, who encouraged me to come here to study and always provided me with their unconditional support.
vu VTTA
October 13, 1958 ...... Bom — Mho, Ibarald, Japan
1981 ...... B.A. Physical Education, Chukyo University.
1983 ...... M A. Physical Education, Chukyo University.
1983-1987 ...... Temporary Instructor, Chukyo University
1987- 1993 ...... Assistant Professor, National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya
1994 - present...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
Research Publications
1. Ogasawara, E., Tabata, I., Taguchi, N., & Ohira, Y. (1993). Relationships among performance, body composhion, and fitness in swimmers at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports. Journal of National Institute of Fhness and Sports. 9. 51-58.
2. Hirai, Y., Ogasawara, E., & Tabata, I. (1993). The contribution on anaerobic and aerobic energy production during supermaximal swimming. Japanese Journal of Sports Sciences. 12(21. 124-129.
3. Ogasawara, E. (1992). American collegiate athletics for women Improvement of Athletic Science (IV) ^ p . 211-224). Tolqro: Asakura Shoten.
4. Ogasawara, E., Taguchi, N., Ogha, F., & Sudo, M. (1991). Performance training and AT training in swimming. Journal of Training Science. 3(1). 1-5.
5. Ogasawara, E., Taguchi, N., Yamaguchi, Y, Kikuchi, H., & Kakizaki, S. (1989). A study on age of female Olympic swimmers. Journal of National Institute o f Fhness and Sports. 4. 47-56.
viii 6. Ogasawara, E., Taguchi, N., Tsuji, HL, & Fukashiro, S. (1988). Kinemadcal study on a dolphin kick with the buttofly stroke. Journal o f National Institute of Fitness and Sports. 3 .91-100.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
(Sport Management and Coaching)
IX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract...... ü
Dedication ...... v
Acknowledgments ...... vi
Vita...... viii
List of Tables ...... xiii
List of Figures ...... xv
Chapters:
1. Introduction ...... 1
Job Satisfaction ...... 4 Theories of Job Satisfaction ...... 5 Organizational and Occupational Commitment...... 8 Job Involvement and Value of Work ...... 11 Cross-National Comparisons ...... 14 Development of Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire ...... 16 Definitions of Terms ...... 17 Purposes of the Study ...... 19
2. Review of Related Literature ...... 21
Job Satisfaction ...... 22 Theories Related to Job Satisfaction ...... 22 Popular Satisfaction Instruments ...... 26 Prior Research on Teacher Job Satisfaction ...... 29 Prior Research on Job Satisfaction o f Physical Education Teachers...... 31 Coaches Satisfaction ...... 33 Summary of the Review of Related Literature ...... 39 X Organizational Commitment ...... 39
Multidimensionality o f Organizational Commitment ...... 40
Foci of Commitment ...... 42
Job Satisfaction-Organizational Commitment Relationships ...... 44
Organizational and Occupational Commitments ...... 47
Job Involvement and Value of Woric ...... 49
Cross-National Comparisons ...... 50
M ethods ...... 54
Purpose of the Study ...... 54
Respondents ...... 54 American Coaches ...... 55 Japanese Coaches ...... 56
Instrument...... 60 Demographic Information ...... 60 Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire ...... 60 General Index of Work Commitment ...... 62
Analyses ...... 63
Results...... 66
Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire ...... 67
Reliability Estimates ...... 72
Correlations Among Satisfaction Subscales ...... 74
Sub-Group Differences in Job Satisfaction and Work Commitment. 74 Job Satisfaction ...... 78 Work Commitment ...... 81 xi Job Satisfaction and Work Commitm ent ...... 83 Correlational Analyses ...... 84 Regression Analyses ...... 92
5. Discussion ...... 94
Demographic Differences ...... 94
Dimensionality of Job Satisfaction ...... 96
Subgroup Differences ...... 100
Satisfaction-Commitment Relationships ...... 104
List of References ...... 108
Appendices
A Copy of Coach SatisAction Questionnaire (English) ...... 117
B. Copy of Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire (Japanese) ...... 129
C. Factor Loadings of Original Extraction (14 Factors) of Job Satisfaction Among Division I Coaches ...... 141
D. Factor Loadings of Original Extraction of Job Satisfaction Among Division HI Coaches ...... 145
E. Factor Loadings of Original Extraction of Job Satis&ction Among Japanese Coaches ...... 149
F. Factor Loadings of 14 Factors Extraction of Job Satisfaction Among Division HI Coaches ...... 153
G. Factor Loadings of 14 Factors Extraction of Job Satisfaction Among Division I Coaches ...... 157
XU LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Facets of job satis&ction of the JDI, the lOR, and the MSQ ...... 27
2. Distribution of respondents by gender and sport in Division I, Division HL
and Japan ...... 57
3. Demographic information by coaches ...... 58
4. Definitions and reliability estimates of subscales of work commitment ...... 64
5. Factor loadings of 11 job satisfaction 6cets in Division I, Division ED,
and Japan ...... 69
6. Reliability estimates for scales of 11 job satis6ction facets ...... 73
7. Correlation matrix of 11 job satisfaction fecets in Division I coach 75
8. Correlation matrix of 11 job satisfaction fecets in Division DI Coaches ...... 76
9. Correlation matrix of 11 job satisfaction fecets in Japanese Coaches 77
10. Means and standard deviations of 11 job satisAction facets among
Division I, Division lU, and Japanese coaches ...... 79
11. Means and standard deviations of 4 work commitment Actors among
Division I, Division lU, and Japanese coaches ...... 82
12. Correlations between 11 job satisfaction Acets and 4 work commitment
Factors ...... 85
13. Regression of organizational commitment among Division I coaches 86
xui 14. Regression of organizational commitment among Division m coaches... 87
15. Regression of organizational commitment among Japanese coaches 88
16. Regression of occupational commitment among Division I coaches 89
17. Regression of occupational commitment among Division HI coaches 90
18. Regression of occupational commitment among Japanese coaches 91
19. Rank order of 11 job satisfaction facets among Division I, Division EH, and Japanese coaches ...... 102
xrv USTOFnGURES
Figure Page
1. Lawler’s Facet Model of Satisfaction ...... 25
XV CH A PTERl
INTRODUCTION
Japan is one of the most industrialized nations in the world and is also the second largest economy in the world. While this pre-eminence can be attributed to the hard work of an educated workforce, it is also true that the Japanese government and the industrial and educational sectors had joined hands to create efBcient and innovative production systems in various industries. The innovative processes include management of business and industrial enterprises, and Japanese management practices such as bottom-up management and quality circles that have been touted and implemented around the world.
Despite advances in the industrial and business sectors, Japan lags behind many other nations, including less industrialized and less wealthy nations, in achievements in international sport. For instance, in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Japan placed 21st in the medal count. Poorer and less populated countries like Cuba (9th) or Korea (8th) tend to surpass Japan in international competitions (United Stares Olympic Committee, 1996).
Apart from some excellent performances from speed skaters, marathon runners, or judo players, there has not been any pronounced and sustained performance in any other sports. This general lack of sporting success on the international scene is in sharp
contrast to the great interest in sports within the country. For instance, the popularity of
professional baseball and soccer in Japan is equal to, if not greater than their popularity in
other countries. In fact, the sudden growth of the J-League (soccer) is touted as one of
the grand successes of sport marketing. In addition, the sport industry’s share in the
Japanese economy has been around 9.7% in 1990, which compares favorably with other
nations (Oga& Kimura, 1993).
The participation rates in sports have also been relatively high. It is reported that
about eighty-seven percent of Japanese want their athletes to perform well and win
medals in international competitions, including Olympic Games (Ministry of Education,
Science & Culture, 1992). Given this impetus from the public, the enormous wealth of
the nation, and the excellent know-how and expertise in management, it is surprising that
Japan has not done well in sports. One reason that has been alluded to for the lackluster
performance is the lack of physical endowments (height, weight, etc.) of Japanese
athletes relative to other athletes. While the physical characteristics can be a limiting
factor in some sports (e.g., basketball), such is not case in many other sports (e.g.,
wrestling, and boxing). Granted this shortcoming, Japan could still do well in those
sports where these physical factors will not be a determinant of success. From a different perspective, while the averages of physical characteristics of the Japanese may be lower compared to some other nations, a nation of 100 million people should be able to identify enough people with necessary physical attributes and athletic talent. In fact, a few decades ago, Japan was the nation to beat in both men’s and women’s volleyball, a sport for taller people. Another reason for the low profile o f Japan on the international sport scene is said to be the lack of a coherent system of training and guidance for athletes, and a lack of support systems for current and former athletes and coaches ^dinistry of Education,
Science & Culture, 1992). Along similar lines, an equally persuasive reason is that the development of intercoU%iate sports in Japan has not kept pace with such development in other industrial nations, most notably the United States o f America. Although every
Japanese university has a sports program, such programs are run like clubs under the guidance of a nominal foculty supervisor and led by student captains and/or alumni.
Occasionally, former athletes may be assigned by local business enterprises to coach the teams. In addition, faculties in the departments of physical education are assigned the task of coaching university teams. All these efforts are not geared to the pursuit of excellence as is the case in the United States and other countries. This is unfortunate because a large number of potential international athletes are bound to the university systems in their youth (i.e., 18 to 25 years), the prime years for the pursuit and attainment of athletic excellence. The low priority assigned to athletics in the universities has resulted in low representation of university students on national teams. For instance, the percentage of students representing Japan was only 19% in the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics, 19% in the 1988 Seoul Olympics, 21% in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, and
16% in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics (Japanese Olympic Committee, 1984, 1988, 1992,
1996). This is in sharp contrast to an average of 50% of Olympic competitors being students in other countries. This low representation of students on national teams was said to be a major contributing reason for the low performance of Japanese teams. It has been suggested that one useful avenue for enhancing Je an ’s athletic profile
is to foster intercollegiate athletics (J^an Amateur Sports Association, 1980). While
several steps can be taken to strengthen university sports in J^an, the focus of the
present research is on fostering an elite cadre of coaches. The fiscus on coaching is critical because every other effort to build up the system of university athletics converges and ultimately flows toward the athletic teams and their coaches. Further, it is the coaches who mold individuals and their raw talents into successful athletes. It is generally agreed that the coaches' experience, expertise, insights, and dedication are the cornerstones of athletic endeavor. Thus, the focus on the coaching occupation is logical and legitimate. It must also be acknowledged that the coaches are long-term fixtures on the athletic scene whereas the athletes typically are involved in university athletics for about four years untill they graduate. Hence, it is important that greater attention be given to the coaching ranks than is the current practice. The important roles of coaches and the significant contributions they can make to enhance collegiate athletics have been recognized and stressed in the Japanese context (Ogasawara, 1995).
Job Satisfaction
The present research is based on the premise that any efforts to bolster the coaching ranks in Japanese universities must begin with a clear analysis and understanding of the current status of coaching and coaches at the university level.
Further, such analysis must also be based on coaches’ own reactions to various aspects of coaching and their experiences in it. Accordingly, this research was designed to assess
4 one significant set of reactions to involvement in coaching, that ofjob satisfaction defined as “positive emotional state resulting firom the appraisal of one's job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Similarly, Dawis and Lofquist (1984) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable afifective condition resulting fi'om one’s appraisal of the way in which the experienced job situation meets one’s needs, values, and expectations”
(p. 72).
The identification of those aspects (facets) of the coaching job eliciting satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) was expected to serve as a prelude to further analysis of the job and development of guidelines for enhancing the coaching occupation. In sum, the major purpose and strategy of the proposed study were exploratory to the extent that it is the intent to identify and delineate the extent of satisfaction with salient dimensions of coaching.
Theories of Job Satisfaction
According to Hambleton (1989), job satisfaction has been discussed from several theoretical perspectives. The first perspective holds that job satisfaction is a function of the extent to which one’s needs are satisfied in a job. The classifications of needs used in this regard are either based on Maslow’s (1943) need hierarchy theory or Herzberg’s
(1968) motivation-hygiene theory. The need hierarchy theory identifies five classes of needs—physiological needs, safety and security needs, love and social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization. These are ordered in a hierarchical manner based on the prepotence (power or force) of each class when deprived. Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor
5 theory conceives of two sets of Actors leading to satisAction and dissatisfaction. The first, labeled motivators (e.g., achievement, recognition), reflects Maslow’s higher-order needs, and is said to lead to satisfaction. On the other hand, the hygiene factors (e.g., pay, supervision) represent the lower-order needs of Maslow, and are said to lead to dissatisfaction if not met in the work place. This is in contrast to Maslow’s position that lower-order needs have to be satisfied before attempts are made at satisfying higher-order needs.
Another theory related to job satisAction is Adam’s equity theory (1965) which focuses on workers’ perceptions of their own inputs (e g., labor, time, skill) in relation to what the organization provides them in return (e.g., pay, fiinge benefits, supervision, opportunity for social interactions). It is the comparison of one’s outcome-to-input ratio with that of a comparison person that leads to satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
The final perspective is Lawler’s Facet-SatisAction Model (Lawler, 1973), which is also a comparison theory, as is Adam’s theory (Saal & Knight, 1995). The difference is that Lawler’s model was advanced to describe satisfaction in the work pAce while
Adam’s theory was more general in scope to include even interpersonal interactions and social exchanges. The facet model derives its name fi'om the fact it is intended to describe the processes by which satisfaction with any individual job facet (component) is determined (Saal & Knight, 1995). The comparison of a worker’s perceptions of what job outcomes (e.g., pay, recognition) he or she should receive, and perceptions of the outcomes that are actually received, are critical to Lawler’s theory as they are in Adam’s theory. Judgements of what should be received is a function of the perceived inputs (skill, experience, etc.) as well as perceptions of job characteristics (e.g., responsibility,
6 difficulty). Further, perceptions of the inputs and outcomes of others also influence the perceptions o f what should be received. Finally, perceptions of actual outcomes depend on (a) the actual outcomes, and (b) perceptions of outcomes received by referent others.
While the above theories reflect the genesis of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, they do not provide a comprehensive set of 6cets that could be the targets of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The existing instruments vary in the number of 6cets they measure. For example, the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the most widely used scale, measures five fecets—work itself pay, promotion, co-workers, and supervision. The Index of Organizational Reactions (lOR) (Smith, 1976) measures eight facets—supervision, kind of work, amount of work, physical conditions of work, co workers, financial elements, career future, and company. The Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofquist 1967) is for more comprehensive and measures twenty different facets (ability utilization, achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company policies and practices, compensation, co workers, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition, responsibility, social service, social status, supervision-human relations, supervision-technical, variety, and working condition). A recent measure applicable specifically to human services is the
Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1985), which measures nine aspects of jobs: pay; promotion; supervision; benefits; contingent rewards; operating procedures; co-workers; nature of work; and communication. The various measures employed in job satisfaction research are explained in greater detail in Chapter 2.
One difficulty in the study of job satis&ction has been the application of a set of facets derived from the industrial context to other job contexts. Earlier studies on job
7 satisfaction of coaches employed existing scales from the industrial context with modifications of wording to suit the coaching context (e.g., Evans, Johnson, & Ramsey,
1983; Pastore, 1993; Ritter, 1974; Snyder, 1985). As Spector(1985) noted, “despite the increased attention to job satisfaction in human service organizations, generalizations must still be made from industrial findings in many areas. Norms for existing job satisfaction scales do not reflect human services, making it impossible to compare a given human service organization to hum an service organizations in general” (p. 694).
Accordingly, Spector developed his Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) designed to measure nine facets of satisfriction in human services, public, and nonprofit sector organizations.
Although the enterprise of athletics is a human service operation, it can be argued that the job of coaching itself is quite distinct from other jobs in either the industrial or human service organizations. Accordingly, it was felt necessary, to develop a psychometrically sound scale to measure salient dimensions of satisfaction in coaching.
The present study was designed to partially fill this void and provide an initial fimnework for future work in the area.
Organizational and Occupational Commitment
Any analysis of the coaching occupation should investigate the extent to which coaches are committed to their occupation. Only when individuals are committed to their chosen occupation, can we expect them to carry out the associated tasks to the best of their abilities. Earlier efforts in studying employee commitment were focused on commitment to the organization. For instance, Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1982; 1979)
8 defined organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (Mowday et al., 1982; p.
27). Organizational commitment is reflected in the extent to which an employee (a)
believes and accepts the goals and values of the organization, (b) is willing to exert effort
on behalf of the organization and (c) prefers to continue to be a member of the
organization (Mowday et al., 1979; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994). According to
Mowday et al. (1982), commitment is global, reflecting a general affective response to
the whole organization, whereas job satisfection is limited to job experiences. Further, commitment is slow to develop but quite stable, while satisfaction is immediate and variable.
Subsequent to Mowday et al.’s conceptualization and articulation of organizational commitment, several authors have noted that employee commitment could be divided into (a) commitment to the organization and (b) commitment to the occupation and/or career (e.g., Blau, 1985a, 1985b, Blau & Boal, 1989; Lachman & Aranya, 1996;
Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Morrow & Wirth, 1989; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994).
Consistent with the definition of organizational commitment, occupational commitment is defined as “the relative strength of identification with and involvement in one’s profession” (Morrow & Wirth, 1989, p. 41). Vandenberg and Scarpello (1994) extend the above definition by stating that occupational commitment is “a person’s belief in and acceptance of the values of his or her chosen occupation or line of work, and a willingness to maintain membership in that occupation” (p. 535). Further, “the occupational value system stresses values such as collegial and self-control and authority over the occupation, compliance to occupational objectives and standards, autonomy, and
9 client orientatioas and loyalty” 536). It must be noted that several terms such as
occupational commitment, career commitment, and professional commitment are used to
indicate the same construct (Wallace, 1993).
What is missing in the above definitions is the notion of willingness to exert effort
on behalf of the occupation. It is the inclination to expend effort and time on the chosen
line of work that is fundamental to the success and status of that occupation. Thus, while
organizational commitment was of interest in itself the focus of the present study was
also on coaches’ commitment to their occupation.
Further, there is considerable evidence to suggest that commitment in one form or
another is related to satisfaction and, in turn, to turnover, absenteeism, and even total
withdrawal fi'om an organization and/or occupation (Saal & Knight, 1995). While
withdrawal from an organization may n^atively affect the organization, it may not affect
the occupation in so far as the individual continues in the same occupation in another
organizational context. For instance, while it is not uncommon for coaches in American
intercollegiate athletics to withdraw fi'om one university for various reasons, the coaching
occupation thrives because of the occupational commitment of these etperienced and
expert coaches who these subsequent jobs as to coach in other universities.
There has been a suggestion (e g., Wallace, 1993) that the two forms of
commitment—organizational and occupational commitments—may be negatively
correlated, meaning that if one is committed to the organization that person is less likely to be committed to the occupation and vice versa. The alternate view is that these two forms of commitment are independent of each other, and that any association between the two forms of commitment would be a function of the extent to which the values and
10 practices of both the organization and the occupation are consistent with each other (e g.,
Lachman & Aranya, 1986; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994). In feet, Wallace (1993) found in his meta-analysis of 25 correlations that the relation between professional (Le., occupational) commitment and organizational commitment was positive and moderately strong. In a later study, Wallace (1995) maintained that professional and organizational commitments were separate constructs, and that commitment to one did not occur at the expense of the other.
It has also been suggested that an organization may adopt the values of an occupation if that occupation is deemed to be critical to the organization. Given that contingency, we can expect stronger association between the two forms of commitment
(Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994). In our context, if intercoU^ate athletics is valued by a university, the goals and values of coaching are likely to be included in the larger set of goals and values of the organization; therefore, there must be little discrepancy between coaches’ commitment to their organization and their occupation. Stated otherwise, the degree of congruence between organizational commitment and occupational commitment may be a surrogate measure of the extent to which universities accept athletics and coaching as legitimate efforts.
Job Involvement and Value of Work
In addition to the distinction between organizational commitment and occupational commitment, Blau, Paul, and St. John (1993) have argued for distinguishing among commitment to job (i.e., the extent to which a person identifies psychologically
11 with his or her job), organization (as defined above), occupation (as defined above), and
work in general (i.e., the extent to which work is central in one’s life).
One way to conceptualize these distinctions would be on a time line. Job
involvement and organizational commitment would seem to have a more
immediate focus, while occupational commitment is intermediate and
value of work the most long-term. (Blau et al., 1993; p. 310).
The significance of Blau et al. (1993) fimnework lies in its ability to capture an
individual’s commitment to work in general, and a current job in particular, without
reference to commitment to the organization and/or career. That is, an individual may be
performing a job effectively even in the absence of either organizational or occupational
commitment. In this case, the impetus to do well in a job may come from the importance
of the particular job to one’s self-image, or the individual may be spurred to perform well
because work (any work!) may be an integral part of that person’s value system (Blau et
al., 1993).
The distinction between occupational commitment on the one hand and job
involvement and value of work in general on the other may be critical with reference to
those occupational categories which are not organized and which have not gained a status
in society (e.g., clerks in grocery stores). Even in established occupations like coaching, the degree to which coaching is organized, and respected may vary across countries and
cultures. Under those circumstances, the individual’s conception of his or her occupation
may not be sufficiently crystallized and, therefore, the scope for developing a
12 commitment to that occupation may be limited. When this is the case, the value an
individual attaches to his or her woik would be the motivational force to perform the job
well. Based on this argument, this study explored the degree to which intercollegiate
coaches in Japan were committed to their job in particular, and work in general.
Blau and his colleagues (Blau 1985a, 1985b, 1994; Blau et al., 1993) followed Morrow’s
(1983) call for a multidimensional index of commitment (analogous to the Job
Descriptive Index), and developed the General Index of Work Commitment which
consists of the following four focets of commitment:
1. Occupational commitment (11 items),
2. Organizational commitment (6 items),
3. Job involvement (7 hems), and
4. Value o f work (7 hems).
As Blau et al. (1993) measure is comprehensive and has been shown to be valid and reliable, this study employed the scale to distinguish among attitudes of Japanese coaches toward job, organization, occupation, and work in general.
In summary, the concept of commitment is multidimensional to the extent an individual may be committed to (a) the organization, (b) the occupation (profession), and/or (c) to work in general. It is also stressed that these forms of commitment are independent of each other. Research also shows that different forms of commitment are differentially related to various facets of satisfaction. In our context, any suggestions for improvement of coaching in the universities must take into consideration the employee satisfaction whh the facets of the coaching job as well as the linkages between the
13 employee and the job. In other words, the forms of commitment are as significant as the
satisfaction measures in the analysis o f coaching in the universities.
Cross-National Comparisons
If the system o f American intercollegiate athletics is to serve as a model for the
Japanese context, a comparison o f the reactions of American and Japanese coaches to their respective jobs might identify the ways in which coaching jobs in Japan could be redesigned and accorded appropriate status. With this in mind, it was decided to survey a random sample of American collegiate coaches employing the same instrument administered to the Japanese coaches.
It was expected that the American and Japanese coaches would differ in their attitudes toward their job, their occupation, and their organizations for two reasons. First, it has been shown that cultural differences influence the reactions of American and
Japanese workers, including managers. For instance, Brislin (1990) reports de Boer’s
(1978) finding that Sweden had the largest proportion of workers who reported satisfaction (63%) while Japan had the smallest proportion of satisfied workers (20%). It has also been reported that Japanese employees have lower general job satisfaction when compared with Americans (Azumi & McMillan, 1976; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1985).
The second reason is that they are intercollegiate athletics is not as well entrenched in
Japanese universities as they are in the United States; therefore, coaches in the American and Japanese universities might differ in their reactions to their respective coaching jobs.
14 A related issue is the relative efifects of performance and cultural imperatives. It has been argued that the requirements o f a performance situation would impose certain similar behavioral and attitudinal tendencies among the employees from different cultures. For instance, Vertinsl^, Tse, Wehrun^ and Lee (1990) referring to similarities in organizational design across cultures argued that “some normative systems of organizational design and management are universally superior. Thus, through a process of evolutionary selection and learning, these systems provide a frxms for convergence in all national environments” (p. 854). this argument can be extended to the coaching context and if the hypothesis of congruence is valid, then we can expect the American and Japanese coaches to be similar in their attitudes toward their coaching jobs, based on the argument that athletic performance imperatives are the same across the two cultures.
In contrast, the cultural difference hypothesis holds that workers from different cultures would differ in their attitudes despite the performance requirements. For instance, Hofrtede (1984), referring to organizational design, suggested that “people build organizations according to their values and societies are composed of institutions and organizations that reflect dominant values within their culture” (p. 81). If this hypothesis of divergence is held to be true in the present context, then we can expect the
American and Japanese coaches to differ in all the measures included in the study.
In order to test the above two hypotheses, it was decided to include a random sample of coaches from NCAA Division I and Division m institutions. Division I and
Division m institutions are distinguished from each other on the basis o f the emphases they place on athletics. For example. Division m institutions do not offer athletic scholarships and do not emphasize the recruiting process, while these two processes are
15 very critical to athletics in Division I institutions. In this r^ard, the purposes and
processes of athletics in Japanese universities are closer to those of Division XU athletics
than to Division I athletics.
Given the hypothesis o f performance imperatives and thus of convergence, it was
expected that the American coaches in Division m institutions and the Japanese coaches
would be similar in their reactions, and that both sets of coaches would differ from their
counterparts in Division I institutions. On the other hand, given the hypotheses of
cultural differences and thus divergence, the expectation was that the Japanese coaches
would differ from both Division I and Division XU coaches.
Development of Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
A final purpose o f the study was to begin the process of developing a psychometrically sound scale of coaching satisfaction. Because there was no scale to measure a comprehensive set of frtcets of satisfoction of coaches, a large number of items were generated to reflect various facets of coaching. As Spector (1985) noted, care must be taken to ensure that the content of the items should be applicable to human services
(i.e., coaching in our context), and the items must cover most aspects of jobs in human services (i.e., coaching). With this in mind, applicable items and facets were collated from earlier work in industrial and human services context (e.g.. Smith et al., 1969;
Spector, 1985; Weiss et al., 1967). Xn addition, the Acets and items reflecting athlete satisfaction were also a source of the items selected for the present study (Chelladurai &
Riemer, 1997). Finally, the investigators identified specific facets and hems deemed
16 relevant to the coaching context. Exploratory Actor analyses (principal components) of these hems resulted in the identification of 11 Acets of satisAction in coaching. The development of the instrument is described in greater detail in Chapter 3. This list of dimensions could provide the framework for further refinement of the scale through generation of additional hems as necessary, and subsequent confirmatory analyses.
Definitions of Terms
Coach
A coach has been defined as ‘‘a person who instructs or trains performers in the fundamentals and various techniques of a sport” (Fuoss & Troppmann, 1981, p. 9). In this study, a college coach is defined as; a person who instructs and trains student- athlete(s) in intercollegiate athletics.
Job Satisfaction
Dawis and Lofquist (1984) defined job satisAction as “a pleasurable affective condition resulting from one’s appraisal of the way in which the experienced job satisfaction meets one’s needs, values, and expectations” (p. 72). This definition is appropriate for this study.
17 Qrpanizational Cftirunitment
Organizational commitment refers to “a belief in and accq>tance of the goals and
values of the employing organization, and a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the
organization and to maintain organizational membership” (Vandenberg & Scarpello,
1994; p. 536).
Occupational Commitment
Occupational commitment refers to “a person’s belief in acceptance of the values
of his or her chosen occupation or line of work, and a willingness to maintain
membership in that occupation” (Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994; p. 535).
Job Involvement
Job involvement refers to “the degree o f daily absorption an individual experiences in work activity” (Morrow & Wirth; 1989, p.43).
Value of Work
Value of work refers to the Protestant work ethic which is the belief that hard work is intrinsically good and an end in itself (Blau et al., 1993).
18 Purposes o f the Study
The primary purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the dimensionality o f job satisfaction among Japanese and American collegiate coaches and to develop a psychometrically sound scale of satisfaction in coaching, (b) identify significant differences among Division I, Division ID, and Japanese coaches in their job satisfaction and organizational and occupational commitments, and (c) explore the relationships between facets of satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational commitments.
Research Questions
The major research questions in this study were:
1. What are the significant dimensions of satis&ction among Japanese and
American coU ^ate coaches?
2. Do Japanese and American coaches differ in their satis&ctions and commitments?
3. What is the extent to which Japanese and American collegiate coaches are committed to the coaching occupation and to their universities?
4. What are the relationships among dimensions o f satisfaction, occupational, and organizational commitment?
19 Delimitations
This study was delimited to investigating head coaches within intercollegiate athletic programs in the NCAA Division I and Division HI institutions in the United
States. In addition, in Japan samples for this study were selected from head coaches who were recommended from a college sport section o f each sport organization. The study was also delimited to coaches of basketball, swimming, tennis, track and field, gymnastics, volleyball, and judo (for Japan only). Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to other populations (e.g., coaches in Division II universities or other sports coaches).
Limitations
A limitation of the study is that the data are based on self-reports. Thus, subjects might have responded in such a way as to enhance their status; they might have responded arbitrarily; and might have allowed others to respond to the questionnaire.
20 CHAPTER2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purposes o f this research were threefold. First, the study investigated the dimensionality ofjob satisfaction among Japanese and American coil^ate coaches in order to develop a psychometrically sound scale o f satisfaction in coaching. Second, significant differences among Division I, Division m , and Japanese coaches in their job satisfaction and organizational and occupational commitments were identified. Finally, the study explored the relationships between facets of satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational commitments. Accordingly, the review is organized into three parts. The first part reviews the relevant literature on job satisfaction with specific reference to job satisfiiction in teaching and coaching. The second part outlines the literature on organizational commitment and occupational commitment The third part deals with cross cultural comparisons in woricer attitudes Q.e., job satisfoction, organizational, and occupational commitment among Japanese and American workers).
21 Job SatisfaCTion
Theories Related to Job Satisfaction
According to Hambleton (1989), job satisfaction has been discussed from several theoretical perspectives. One of the theories is Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory, which states job satisfaction is contingent on the fulfillment of individual needs. There are five hierarchical needs in Masiow’s theory; physiological, safety and security, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (Chelladurai, 1985). The major assumption in
Maslow’s needs theory is that lower-order needs have to be satisfied before attempts are made at satisfying higher-order needs. Yet, according to Chelladurai (1985), one major limitation of Maslow’s needs theory is that this assumption cannot be adequately tested because individuals progress through the hierarchy of needs one at a time.
Herzberg offered two factor theory of job satisfaction. According to Herzberg,
Mausner, ancfSnyderman (1959), individuals tend to describe satisfying work experiences with respect to hictors that are intrinsic to the content of the job itself. These motivators or Actors, which are closely related to Maslow’s higher-order needs, include variables such as achievement, recognition, the work itself^ responsibility, advancement and growth. On the contrary, dissatisfaction with work results from non-job-related (so called “hygiene”) factors which closely resemble Maslow’s lower- order needs. These hygiene factors are company policies, salary, co-worker relations, supervisory style. As
Chelladurai (1985) pointed out, “the two factor theory is limited by the method used to develop it” (p. 117). While many researchers of job satisfaction used the two factor theory
22 as their theoretical base in 1960s and 1970s, the theory seems to have lost its popularity because of its limitations (Ono, 1993).
Another theory related to job satisAction is equity theory by Adams (1965).
According to Saal and Knight (1995), it is “the best known balance theory o f work motivation”(p.256) which puts its basis on “workers’ inputs, or what they perceive that the organization provides them in return” (p. 256). T h ^ summarized the equity theory as follows:
Inputs can take a variety of forms, such as labor, time, skill, and years of
education or «qxrience that woricers have accumulated. Outcomes can also vary,
ranging from pay and fringe benefits to praise and recognition from a superior, to
opportunities for social interaction with coworkers. According to the theory, each
worker forms a ratio of her or his outcomes to inputs. The ratio is compared to
what the woficer perceived as the outcome-to-input ratio of comparison person, or
what Adams called a “significant other.” The two ratios are equal when the
worker and the comparison person are seen as receiving the same level of
outcomes for each unit of input. Under these conditions the worker will
experience feelings of equity, and there will be no motivation to change behavior.
K on the other hand, the ratios are not equal, the worker will experience inequity,
and tension will result, (pp. 256-257)
23 The equity theory can be used as a basic theory to define what job satisfaction is.
If a worker gets the equal ratio o f inputs and outcomes compared to a significant other, s/he will be satisfied with his/her job.
The final theory to be introduced here is Lawler’s Facet-Satisfaction Model
(Lawler, 1973). According to Saal and Knight (199S), the Lawler’s Facet Satisfaction
Model was proposed as a comparison theory of satisfaction. The theory is an expansion of the part of the Porter-Lawler model related to equity theory. The 6cet model derives its name fi'om the fact it is intended to describe the processes by which satisfaction with any individual job facet (component) is determined (Saal and Knight, 1995).
Figure 1 shows the Lawler’s Facet Satisfaction Model. Saal and Knight (199S) illustrated the model as fi)llows:
The comparison specified in Lawler’s theory is between
perceptions of what a worker believes he should receive, in terms ofjob
outcomes, such as pay, recognition, and promotions, and perceptions of the
outcomes that are actually received. Perceptions of what should be received
depend upon perceptions of the inputs the worker brings to the job, such as skill,
education, and experience, as well as perceptions ofjob characteristics, such as
responsibility and difficulty, and perception of the inputs and outcomes of others.
Perceptions of actual outcomes depend, of course, on the outcomes themselves, as
well as perceptions of the outcomes of referent others, or people holding similar
jobs with whom workers compare themselves. It should be obvious, with all of
this talk about perceptions, that the facet model is highly cognitive in nature, and
24 Skm Experience Treiamg EBbrt Age Seniority Edncation Com pray loyaiity Perceived Past perfixmance Present perfixmaace
Level DifiScully e°b-atis&ction a>b - dissatôfimticn «
received Actural outcomes received
Source: Motivation In Work Organizations by E£. Lawler, IIL Copyright ©1973 by Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Brooks/CoIo Publishing Company. Pacific Glove, California.
Figure 1: Lawler’s Facet Model o f Satisfaction
25 reflects the view that people respond to their perceptions of reality more directly
than to reality itself, (pp.285-286)
Popular Satisfaction Instruments
Instruments frequently applied to measure job satisfaction in the literature are the
Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the Index of Organizational
Reactions (lOR) (Smith, 1976), and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MS())
(Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofipiist 1967). Table 1 shows the comparison of each facet of these three instruments.
The JDI is the most widely used instrument measuring job satisfaction (Balzer,
Smith, Kravitz, Lovell, Paul, Reilly, & Reilly, 1990). The JDI is often combined with the
JIG (Job In General) scale which is “a global scale designed to complement the facet scales o f the JDF’ (Parks, Russell, Wood, Roberton, & Shewokis, 1995, p. 75). The JDI measures five facets; work itself pay, promotion, co-workers, and supervisioiL The JDI usually consists of 72-hems to measure these five fticets. Research participants are asked to answer whether or not a statement about a particular 6cet describes the aspect of his/her job. For instance, one will respond “Y” for “Yes” if the item describes the facet in question, or “N” for “No” if h is not adequate to the fttcet, or “?” if one can not decide to respond to the statement. Scores are calculated assigning 3 for “Y”, 0 for “N”, and I for a
“?”. For negatively worded hems, the scoring is reversed. Reported average internal consistency (alpha) of the JDI was .88 (Balzer et al., 1990), and the ranges of the internal consistency were from 84 to .88 (Smith, et al., 1969), and .75 to .93 (Johnson, Smith, &
26 JDI lO R MSQ
Supervision Supervision Supervision-Ehiman Relation
Supervision-Technical
Co-woricers Co-workers Co-workers
Pay Finandal Compensation
Security
Promotion Career Future Advancement
Recognition
Work Kind of Work
Amount of Work
Physical Conditions Woridng Conditions
♦Activity ♦Variety ♦Creativity ♦Achievement ♦Ability Utilization ♦Responsibility ♦Authority ♦Independence
Social Status
Moral Value
Social Service
Company Policies and PracticesCompany Identirication
♦ These are more related to work as defined by JDI.
Table 1 : Facets of Job SatisAction of the JDI, the lOR, and the MSQ
27 Tucker, 1982). In terras of validity, while Balzer et al. (1990) reported that “the JDI measures were found to possess high level of discriminant and convergent validity”
(p.47), the lowest convergent validity of the JDI was reported in a comparative study with other popular Job satisfaction instruments: the MSQ, the lOR, and the Faces Scales
(Dunham, Srmth, & Blackburn, 1977).
The next standardized measure is the lOR. According to Smith (1976), there are eight scales in the lOR with four to six modified Likert items, .which make a total of 42 1 items. The following eight facets were designed to measure satisfaction: supervision, kind o f work, amount of work, physical conditions of work, co-workers, financial elements, career future, and company. According to Dunham, Smith, & Blackburn
(l-_'77), convergent validity of the lOR was .59, which was the second highest validity among four instruments: the JD^ the lOR, the MSQ, and the Faces Scales. In terms of internal consistency, Dunham et al. (1977) reported that it ranged from .60 to .77.
The next prominent scale in the job satisfaction literature is the MSQ developed by Weiss et al. (1967). The MSQ uses a Likert-response format to generate satisfaction scores on twenty different facets (ability utilization, achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company policies and practices, compensation, co-workers, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition, responsibility, social service, social status, supervision-human relations, supervision-technical, variety, and working condition). In this measure, respondents are asked to indicate how happy they are with various aspects of their job on a scale ranging from "very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied”. According to
Dunham et al. (1977), MSQ provided the highest average convergent validity (.63) among the JDI, the lOR, the MSQ, and the Faces Scales. Dunham et al. (1977) also
28 reported internal consistency of the MSQ ranged from .63 to .79. Moreover, according to
Hambleton (1989), the MSQ test-retest correlation coefBcients were measured after a one week period for seventy-five night school students. Stability correlations were found to be ranged from .66 (co-workers scale) to .91 (working conditions scale). Hambleton
(1989) concluded that “the MSQ has relatively high validity and reliability measures when compared to other respected job satisfaction instruments” (p. 85).
Prior Research on Teacher Job Satisfaction
While there is a limited number of studies of coach satisfoction, higher volumes of teacher satisfaction studies are available to be examined.
Early studies in job satisfaction in education mainly focused on the Hertzberg’s motivators factor. Many elements thought to account for the satisfaction o f teachers have been examined. For example, Sergiovarmi (1967) found that achievement, recognition, and responsibility were foctors that contributed predominantly to teacher job satisfriction.
Similarly, Savage (1967) found that achievement, recognition, and teacher relationships with students had the most significant influence on teacher job satisfaction. These studies used Hertzberg’s two foctor theory as their theoretical base (Ruhl-Smith & Smith, 1993).
Recent studies have investigated relationships between job satisfaction and external factors such as conunitment (Ono, 1993). Shin and Reyes (1991) examined the causal relationship between teacher commitment to the school organization and job satisfaction in a model of teacher commitment, using longitudinal career-ladder data.
Two focal measures (commitment and satisfaction) and demographic predictors from 854
29 teachers were analyzed in this study. Although job satisfaction was measured by the short
form of the MSQ composed of 20 questions, as the researchers were not interested in the
facets, they only reported the total score of the MSQ. Cross-lagged correlation/regression
analyses were used to determine the causal ordering of teacher commitment and Job
satisfaction in time-lagged situatioiL Data analyses clearly supported the hypotheses that
commitment is different from satisfaction and that satisfaction has greater causal predominance over commitment with more predictive power than commitment. The findings indicated that satisfaction is a determinant of commitment.
Anderman, Belzer, and Smith (1991) also presented a study of teacher commitment and job satisfaction. This study consisted of three analyses that examined the relationships among teachers’ perceptions of school leadership, school culture, and teacher satisfaction and commitment. One hundred and one teachers from Illinois, 241 teachers from Arizona, and 416 teachers from Florida participated in this study and a five
Likert-scale survey was administered. They focused on the JDFs five facets, that is, work itself supervision, pay, promotion, and co-workers. Multiple regression analysis was used and it was found that a school culture that stressed accomplishment, recognition, and affiliation was related to satisfaction and commitment. Path analysis was also administered to ecamine the relative impact of different leadership behaviors on teacher satisfaction and commitment, focusing on the mediating role of teacher perceptions of school culture. The findings supported the theoretical notion that principals’ action create distinct working environments that were highly predictive indication of teacher satisfaction and commitment.
30 Graham, West and Scfaaller (1992) proposed the Relational Teaching Approach
(RTA) which indicates interpersonal skills in terms of competence, immediacy, and humor, and examined the association between the RTA and teacher satisfaction. The major contribution o f this study was that they used the Teacher Job Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Lester, 1987), which is composed of nine 6cets: supervision, colleagues, working condition, pay, responsibility, work itself advancement, security, and recognition. The results of a canonical correlation revealed one meaningful canonical root which suggested a significant association between the RTA and an instructor's satisfaction. It was suggested that it is within the teachers' control to enhance satisfaction with their job by developing a repertoire of interpersonal skills.
In summary, while the research on teacher job satisfaction has been conducted since the 1960s and several factors related to teacher job satisfaction were found, the focus of research has shifted fi'om the relationship of ficets of teacher satisfaction and demographic data to the causal relationship between teacher job satisfaction and other factors such as commitment.
Prior Research on Job Satisfaction of Physical Education Teachers
Maloney (1974) conducted his study to investigate three areas o f interest concerning job satisfaction in physical education departments, schools, and faculties in
English-speaking Canadian universities. Ifis three central concerns were: (1) the relationship between satisfaction and preferred-perceived discrepancy; (2) the relationship between global and specific measures of satisfaction; (3) the relationship
31 between selected demographic and biographic variables and satisfaction. Thirty-two universities in Canada which offered degree programs in physical education were selected as the sites of this study. Two questionnaires, the Chief Administrators’s
Questionnaire and the Work Environment Questionnaire, were designed. It was found that satisfaction levels for job-specific aspects of the wodc environment were significantly related to preferred-perceived and employer-employee discrepancy levels, which suggested that individual differences were operating in the perception of satisfaction and discrepancy. Satisfaction with the job as a whole was consistently related to satisfaction with the job-specific aspects of the work environment. Age, position of teachers, size o f school, and gender were found to be related to job satisfaction.
Satisfaction appeared to increase as age increased up to the age fifty-five. Professors and associate professors were found to be more satisfied than individuals with other professional ranks, and lecturers and instructors were found to be least satisfied.
Individuals fi’om institutions with enrollment up to 300 and over 600 students were significantly more satisfied than individuals from other institutes. Finally, males were feund to be more satisfied than females on a number of different measures, probably because the majority of females in this study were in the lower age and lower professional categories.
Kendall (1977) studied to identify the feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the physical education teachers o f the Edmonton Public and Separate School Systems by using thirty-five selected job fectors. Locke’s Discrepancy Model (1969) was utilized to investigate the discrepancy between what teachers perceived as existing factors and what they preferred to exist with respect to selected jobs, and to identify the relationship
32 between this discrepancy and their satisfaction responses. The Job Satisfaction
Questionnaire which consists of four sections, such as discrepancy, satisfaction, importance responses to the thirty-five job factors, and biographic and demographic information, was used as an instrument in this study. Results indicated that level of schools, size of schools, and age were related to job satis&ctioiL Senior high school teachers expressed more satisfaction and less discrepancy than junior high school teachers. Teachers in larger schools were more satisfied and there was less discrepancy compared to teachers in small schools. Teachers between the ages o f29-36 years were more satisfied and had less discrepancy than teachers between the ages of 21-28 years.
Overall, studies of physical education teachers have fisund that there are significant relationships between job satisfaction and age, position of teachers, size of school, and gender.
Coach Satisfaction
A relatively small number of studies of job satisfaction of coaches have been conducted. Ritter (1974) conducted research on the fiicets ofjob satisfaction of coaches using Hertzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Factor Theory of job satisfaction as his theoretical fi-amework. The sample was 559 interscholastic head coaches in the State of
New Mexico. A 22-hem Job Satisfaction Questioimaire which utilized Herzberg's 16 job factors in addition to six modified and/or added factors was used in this study.
Independent variables were age, s%, marital status, coaching experience, high school
33 classification, and career won-lost record (percent). The following conclusions were
made;
( I ) The findings of this study rejected the Herzberg's ideas that sources of
satisfaction are found only in the work content and sources of job dissatisfaction are
found only in the work context.
(2) The Herzberg factor universe is inadequate for an accurate assessment of job
attitude in a population whose role calls for an intensive interaction in the public sector
and/or extra organizational activity.
(3) The summation of job factors (average) is not an accurate index of job
satisfaction as perceived by male and female head coaches.
(4) Although significant results were not obtained, there appeared a tendency that
successful performance in coaching role led to satisfaction.
(5) The methodology employed in this investigation might have influenced the
results.
(6) The results of this investigation gave reason to doubt the universality of
Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Factor Theory.
Evans, Johnson, and Ramsey (1983) investigated the relationship of job
satisfaction and type of sports in which coaches were employed. They were interested if job satisfaction of athletic coaches would be influenced by the fact that their sport was
either revenue or nonrevenue producing. The instrument used in this study was a 50-item
Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, which consists of 13 facets: working demands; working
condition; administration organization; pay/salary; job security; personal initiative; recognition; racial matching; organization; personal satisfaction; satisfaction with work;
34 work difficulty; and decision making, and concludes a total job with satisfaction score.
Findings revealed that the type of sport affects the job satisfaction o f coaches. It was found that: (1) coaches o f nonrevenue sports achieved higher work-demands satis&ction;
(2) coaches of revenue sports achieved higher mean scores on job satis&ction; (3) coaches o f revenue sports were more satisfied with the administration/organizational phase of their job; (4) most of the coaches were dissatisfied with their salary; (S) both groups were fairly satisfied with their job security; (6) both groups were satisfied with their personal initiative on the job; (7) coaches in revenue sports were more satisfied with the recognition they received; (8) both groups were 6irly satisfied with the racial balance in their working environments and organizational aspects of their jobs; and (9) the coaches overall were satisfied with their jobs.
Snyder (1985) studied the effects of leader behavior and organizational climate on the job satisfaction of intercollegiate coaches in California. A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used with gender, employment status (full time/part time), and environmental setting
(urban/suburban). The instruments used in this study were: (1) the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire, (2) the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, and
(3) the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). The study used ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, and path analysis to analyze data. The degree of consideration shown by the athletic director had a strong effect on satisfaction with work and supervision. Coaches’ feeling of detachment and the lack of administrative support indicated a negative relationship to satisfaction with work and supervision. Finally, male and female intercollegiate coaches were foimd to differ in respect to the (actors (work, supervision) contributing to job satis6ction.
35 Pastore (1993) investigated differences in job satisfaction between male and female NCAA coaches of women's teams. The study focused on the relationship between gender, NCAA division afGliation, and type o f sport coached and job satisfaction among college coaches. The revised Job Description Index QDI) and the Job in General (JIG) were utilized for this study. In addition to the instruments, a demographic sheet was mailed to each participant. The major finding o f this study was that male and female coaches did not differ in overall attitudes toward their jobs. It was also found that division was not a significant variable affecting coaches' job satisfaction. Also, it was inferred that the type of sport coached might affect the supervision facet of job satisfaction. However, in this study, only four types of sport were selected. Thus, as Pastore recommended, future studies which examine job satisfiiction among coaches should include a variety of sports to clarify the relationship between the two.
Den Boer (1993) also focused on gender differences ofjob satisfaction, attempting to determine if there are significant differences between male and female high school coaches of women’s basketball teams. A thirteen factor 5-Likert Scale questioimaire was developed as the instrument for this study of job satisfaction. Two separate MANOVAs were used to analyze each of two sets of dependent variables
(reasons for entering the coaching profession and foctors that affect job satisfoction in the coaching profession) with the independent variable (gender). The study showed that a significant overall gender difference existed with respect to reasons for entering the coaching profession. On the other hand, there appeared to be no significant difference in factors that affected job satisfaction in the coaching profession.
36 Hendon (1983) developed a tool specifically designed to measure job satisfaction
of coaches, the Coaches Job Satisfaction Diventoiy (CJSI), and explored the nature of job
satisfaction of soAball coaches at two-year colleges. Twenty-six items were grouped under five headings as administrative relations, advancement, compensation, recognition, and social interaction. Significant gender differences were foimd in three out o f the five dependent variables in this study. There were no significant differences between the job satisfaction variables and the independent variables of age, percentage of appointment, and years at present college.
Hambleton (1989) investigated the nature o fjob satisfaction among female intercollegiate athletic coaches and the relationship of job strain and job satis&ction.
Based on Dawis and Lofquist’s theory of work adjustment (1984) and previous research, she identified age, years in coaching, years as a head coach, success in work role, type of sport coaching, aimual income, marital status, collegiate division level of athletic program, and strain as possible sources o f variation in coaches' job satisfactiorL The
Miimesota Satisfaction (Questionnaire (MS(Q) was used to assess overall job satisfaction, as well as 20 components of it. The Strain (Questionnaire (S(Q) was used to assess total strain and its physical, behavioral, and cognitive components. Along with the MSQ and the SQ, a demographic questionnaire was sent to all 300 female intercollegiate athletic head coaches. The response rate was 40% (135 coaches). Only armual income made a statistically significant contribution to the variance in job satisfaction Neither overall job satisfaction nor any of its components was found to vary on the bases of the coaches’ marital status, type of sport coached, or collegiate level of coaching.
37 As for job satisfaction of coaches outside the United States, a limited number of studies have been reported. Li (1993) examined Chinese coaches’ job satisfaction and performance. Six hundred forty coaches from spare-time sports schools in China participated in this study. The instrument used was original in design and composed of
76 items in 12 frcets: job influence, job responsibility, job motivation, incentive system, cooperation of members, communication, interpersonal relationship, hygienic factor, leadership behavior, leadership competency, evaluation, and morale. The results indicated that job influence, job motivation, incentive system, and leader behavior had more influence on job satisfaction and performance than the other eight variables.
Aldndutire (1993) examined job satisfaction in the career expectations o f Nigerian coaches. The Job Sadsfliction Scale (ISS) with 24 items was used for this study. The majority of the coaches reported evidence of dissatisfaction with opportunity of determinants of job satisfaction, and the married coaches were significantly more satisfied than their unmarried counterparts. There was a significantly positive correlation between experience, number of promotions obtained and the level ofjob satisfaction.
Overall, since Ritter (1974) demonstrated the inadequacy of Herzberg’s two factor theory for the study of job satisfaction of coaches, original instruments for coaches such as the JSQ and the CJSI have been developed and used, as well as the JDI, the
MSQ, and other standardized instruments from industrial psychology.
38 Summary of the Review of Related Literature
Many studies ofjob satisfaction have been conducted in an educational setting.
Herzberg’s two Actor theory had greatly influenced studies of teacher job satisfaction in the 1960s and those studies chiefly examined motivators such as challenge, achievement, recognition, autonomy. It was found that achievement, recognition, responsibility, and teacher relationship with students were related Actors to teacher job satisfaction
(Sergiovanni, 1967; Savage, 1967). However, since the 1970s, studies which criticize the
Herzberg’s two Actor theory have begun to appear after Ritter (1974) demonstrated that the theory was inadequate for an accurate measurement of job satisAction. As a result, the focus of Acets of job satisfaction has been shifted from Herzberg’s motivators Actors to the overall facets, which include H er^erg’s hygiene Actors such as working conditions, supervision, which are included in the JDI and the MSQ. Thus, the JDI and the MSQ became popular and reliable instruments. Although several studies have tried to determine what kinds of factors relate to job satisAction of coaches, there has been no agreement among researchers on eractly which Actors are relevant.
Organizational Commitment
The impetus for this study of organizational commitment was provided by
Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) who defined organizational commitment as “a stroi% belief in the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to remain a member of the organization”
39 (p. 27). According to Mowday, et al. (1982), Williams and Hazer (1986), and others, the distinction between organizational commitment and job satisfaction is that commitment is an affective response to beliefs about the organization and job satisfaction is a response to the experience of specific job tasks. Thus, commitment refers to the attachment to the organization including its goals and values, and satisfaction is the reaction to experiences in a specific task environment (Mowday, et al., 1982). Because commitment is more global, it could be expected that the two variables would be correlated. However, the two variables can be sufGciently independent to the extent an employee holds positive beliefs about a specific organization and its goals and values, but has negative feelings about certain aspects of a specific job within that organization, and vice versa. Given this specific conceptual fi*amework, organizational commitment has been consistently measured by Mowday et al. (1982) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.
Multidimensionalitv nf Organiyatinnal Commitment
Several authors have suggested that organizational commitment is multidimensional to the extent that the reasons why individuals may be attached to an organization may be affective, identification, continuance, and moral.
Affective commitment. The most widely accepted view of organizational commitment is that of affective commitment which emphasizes the emotional attachment to the organization and its attributes. This view, in fact, is the central thrust of Mowday
40 et al. (1982) fiamework and scale. This particular viewpoint was first advanced by
Kanter (1968) who defined commitment as "the willingness of social actors to give energy and loyalty to the organization” (p. 499) as a function of an individual’s affect for the group. Thus, the affective component of commitment refers to “the degree to which an individual is psychologically attached to an employing organization through feelings such as loyalty, affection, warmth, belongingness, fondness, happiness, pleasure, and so on” (Jaros, fermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; p. 954).
Identification commitment- O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) introduced the idea that commitment may be more than an artifact of affect for the organization. In their view, a critical component of organizational commitment is the employee’s feelings of pride toward and desire for affiliation with an organization. This view has been endorsed by Allen and Meyer (1990).
Continuance Commitment- The idea is that individuals may be attached to the organization not only because they like the organization or they are proud to be members of the organization, but also because it would be too costly to leave the organization
(Allen & Meyer, 1990). That is, those who have invested time and energy in the organization and have gained seniority and status within the organization may be attached to the organization because o f the loss they would suffer if th ^ were to leave. This view is based on Becker’s (I960) Side-bet theory which emphasizes the employee’s sunken costs in the organization. “Continuance commitment reflects the degree to which an
41 individual experiences a sense of being locked in place because of the high costs of leaving” (Jaros et al-, 1993, p. 953).
Moral commitment The original conception of moral commitment based on internalization of norms and identification with organizational authority was first proposed by Etzioni (1975). O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) defined and measured normative commitment as congruence between an individual’s and an organization’s values. Mayer and Schoorman (1992) labeled it as value commitment and defined it as an employee’s acceptance of an organization’s goals and values. According to Jaros et al. (1993), moral commitment refers to the degree of an individual’s internalization of organizational goals, values, and missions. Jaros et al. (1993) noted that:
This form of commitment differs fi'om affective commitment because it
reflects a sense of duty, an obligation, or calling, to work in the
organization, but not necessarily emotional attachment. It differs fi'om
continuance commitment because it does not necessarily fluctuate with
personal calculations of inducements or sunk costs, (p. 955)
Foci o f Commitment
While the forgoing discussion was focused on the reasons for commitment, there is also the discussion of the targets of such commitment. Those who hold the view of
42 multiple commitments argue that an individual employee may be differentially committed to the organization as a whol^ the specific groups such as top management, supervisors, co-workers, and customers (e.g., Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996;
Cohen, 1993; Reichers, 1985). For instance, Reichers (1985) argued that organizational commitment is not a ‘^monolithic, undififerentiated entity^ that elicits an identification and attachments on the part of individuals” but “a collection o f multiple commitments to various groups that comprise the organization” (p. 469).
The question then arises whether or not the global concept of organizational commitment subsumes the various constituency-specific commitments. In other words, is organizational commitment simply a sum of the vcrious constituency-specific commitments? Or is it independent of constituency-specific commitments? Further, there is the question of whether or not organizational commitment is a mediating construct between constituency specific commitmaits and desired organizational outcomes. Hunt and Morgan (1994) concluded fi’om their study that “global organizational commitment is a key mediating concept and the constituency-specific commitments are factors that have important outcomes fi)r organizations because they lead to, bring about, or result in global organizational commitment” (p. 1581).
There is considerable evidence to suggest that commitment in one form or another is related to satisfoction and, in turn, to turnover, absenteeism, and even total withdrawal from an organization and/or occupation (Saal & Knight, 1995).
43 Job Satisfaction-Organizational Commitment Relationships
As noted earlier, the two variables of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are conceptually distinct concepts. Glisson and Durick (1988) provided evidence to the conceptual distinctiveness of the two concepts when they found that different sets of predictors explained the variation in these concepts. They concluded that because a different hierarchy of predictors exists for each attitude (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment), “the two attitudes are distinct and separate” (p. 76).
It was also noted earlier that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are likely to be highly correlated. Martin and Bennett (1996) have identified from their review of literature four models of causal relationships between these two variables.
Model 1 : Job Satisfaction is Antecedent to Organizational Commitment. In this model, job satisfaction is viewed as antecedent to organizational commitment.
Accordingly, as the employee continues to enjoy certain intrinsic and extrinsic benefits through performing his/her job, the employee experiences job satisfaction. This'^ate of satisfaction is associated with the organization, and through such association the individual cultivates a sense of commitment to the organization. Martin and Bennett
(1996) noted that (a) job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been found to be positively correlated, (b) organizational commitment has been found to correlate more highly with measures of turnover than do measures of satisfaction, and (c) job satisfaction develops more rapidly as opposed to organizational commitment. Based on these three
44 findings, Martin and Bennett (1996) suggested that job satisfaction could be a cause of organizational commitment (p.85).
Model 2: r)rpaniy.atiooal Commitment is Antecedent to Jnh Satisfaction, Citing the results of other studies (e.g., Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Price & Mueller, 1981;
Vandenberg & Lance, 1992), Martin and Bennett (1996) suggested a contrasting view of the casual relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in which organizational commitment is causally antecedent to job satisAction. This model is based on a cognitive dissonance approach (Festinger, 1957), in which the preexisting organizational commitment is rationalized by subsequent attitudes o f job satisfaction.
“That is, individuals make sense of their situation by developing a level of satisfaction consistent with their level of commitment” (Martin & Bennett, 1996; p. 85).
Model 3: Qreani%atinnal Commitment and Job Satisfaction are reciprocallv
Related. This model stipulates that job satisfaction and organizational commitment influence each other in a reciprocal maimer. As these reciprocal effects come in quick succession, it is hard to establish a causal ordering between the two variables (Martin &
Bennett, 1996).
Model 4: Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction are Independent. The final model suggests that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are independent of each other and that there is no causal effect between the two variables.
45 Martin and Bennett (1996) did find support for the fourth model, i.e., job
satisfaction and organizationai commitment are causally independent. The present
research adopts this view and treats the two variables as independent outcomes.
Any consideration of the relationship between job satisfaction and commitment
should include the distinguishing characteristics of human service organizations. While it
can be said that because the three groups of coaches are likely to employ the same
technology (i.e., the technology of coaching), they are also likely to have similar
reactions to the jobs. However, Glisson and Durich (1988) noted that the influence of job characteristics should be separated fi’om its technological characteristics. In their
view.
The importance of this distinction is that it separates purely
technologically defined activities fiom those closely related job tasks that are
defined in part by social structure. While technological activities are determined
primarily by the existing knowledge of the raw material and the processes
required to produce the desired end product, job characteristics are determined by
both the technology and the structure in which it is implemented. This makes it
possible to conceive of two organizations that use the same technology, with
workers in one organization experiencing very different job characteristics fiom
those experienced by workers in the other, (p.63)
Further, technologies in human services such as coaching are “so ill-defined and indeterminate (primarily because of variable raw materials and lack of knowledge of
46 them) that the technological imperative is substantially weakened. This allows structural characteristics to be implemented without considering technological requirements”
(Glisson & Durick, 1988; p. 64). In other words, the influence technology is supposed to have on work attitudes, such as job satisAction and commitment, weakened in the case of coaching. Thus, it is the organizational context in which the technology is employed that would have greater influence in employee attitudes.
Organizational and Occupational Commitments
An important advance that has been made in the study of employee attitudes is the distinction between organizational and occupational commitments. Organizational commitment is reflected in the extent to which an employee (a) believes and accepts the goals and values of the organization, (b) is willing to exert effort on behalf of the organization and (c) prefers to continue to be a member of the organization (Mowday et al., 1979; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994).
Consistent with the definition of organizational commitment, occupational commitment is defined as “the relative strength of identification with and involvement in one’s profession” (Morrow & Wirth, 1989, p. 41). Vandenberg and Scarpello (1994) extend the above definition by stating that occupational commitment is “a person’s belief in and acceptance of the values of his or her chosen occupation or line of work, and a willingness to maintain membership in that occupation” (p. 535). Further, “the occupational value system stresses values such as collegial and self-control and authority over the occupation, compliance to occupational objectives and standards, autonomy, and
47 client orientations and loyalty” (p. 536). & must be noted that several terms such as occupational commitment, career commitment, and professional commitment are used to indicate the same construct (Wallace, 1993).
There have been some suggestion (e.g., Wallace, 1993) that the two forms of commitment—organizational and occupational commitments—may be n^atively correlated, meaning that if one is committed to the organization that person is less likely to be committed to the occupation and vice versa. The alternate view is that these two forms of commitment are independent of each other. Any association between the two forms of commitment would be a fonction o f the extent to which the values and practices of both the organization and the occupation are consistent with each other (e g., Lachman
& Aranya, 1986; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994). In feet, Wallace (1993) found in his meta-analysis of 25 correlations that the relations between professional (i.e., occupational) commitment and organizational commitment was positive and moderately strong. In a later study, Wallace (1995) maintained that professional and organizational commitments were separate constructs, and that commitment to one did not occur at the expense of the other.
It has also been suggested that an organization may adopt the values of an occupation if that occupation is deemed to be critical to the organization. Given that contingency, we can expect stronger association between the two forms of commitment
(Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994). In our context, if intercollegiate athletics is valued by a university, the goals and values of coaching is likely to be included in the larger set of goals and values of the organization and, therefore, there must be little discrepancy between coaches’ commitment to their organization and their occupation. Stated
48 otherwise, the degree of congruence between organizational commitment and occupational commitment may be a surrogate measure of the extent to which universities accept athletics and coaching as l%itimate efforts. It is assumed here that both forms of commitment are relatively high.
Job Involvement and Value of Work
While the focus of the present research is on both organizational and occupational commitment, two other related concepts must also be considered. Blau, Paul, and St.
John (1993) have argued for distinguishing among commitment to job (i.e., the ectent to which a person identifies psychologically with his or her job), organization (as defined above), occupation (as defined above), and work in general (i.e., the extent to which work is central in one’s life).
One way to conceptualize these distinctions would be on a time line. Job
involvement and organizational commitment would seem to have a more
immediate focus, while occupational commitment is intermediate and
value of work the most long-term. (Blau et al., 1993; p. 310)
Blau et al. (1993) “job” facet is based on Kanungo’s (1982) conception of job involvement. The “work in general” facet is reflective of the Protestant work ethic
(Blood, 1969). Their research has resulted in a psychometrically sound scale consisting of 31 items to measure the four facets of work commitment—11 items for occupational
49 commitment, 7 items for job involvement, 7 items for value of work, and 6 items for organizational commitment. Because this study was concerned with both organizational and occupational commitments, Blau et al. (1993) scale was employed so that these forms of commitment are measured by a single scale. Furthermore, the General Index of
Work Commitment is one of the most recently developed scales.
hi summary, the concept of commitment is multidimensional to the extent an individual may be committed to (a) the organization, (b) the occupation (profession), and/or (c) to one’s work in general. It is also stressed that these forms of commitment are independent of each other. Research also shows that different forms o f commitment are differentially related to various focets of satisfaction, hi our context, any suggestions for improvement o f coaching in the universities must take into consideration employee satisfaction with the facets of the coaching job as well as the linkages between the employee and the job. In other words, the forms of commitment are as significant as the satisfaction measures in the analysis of coaching in the universities.
Cross-National Comparisons
As noted earlier, the present study is concerned with cross-national comparisons between American and Japanese coaches in their reactions to their coaching jobs and their employing organizations, and the occupation of coaching itself. Several studies have noted significant differences between Japanese and American workers. For example, it has been shown that Japan had the smallest percentage of satisfied workers in comparison to workers in other countries. For example, Azumi and McMillan (1975)
50 survey found that only 39% of Japanese workers were satisfied with their job in comparison to 70% among British workers and 83% among Swedish workers. Lincoln and McBride (1987) reported the results of a Japanese government survey which found that job satisfaction among youth was the lowest in Japan (60%) in comparison to the
82% rate of satisfiiction among Americans. Lincoln, Harada, and Olson (1981) found in their study of employees from the same US-based, Japanese-owned firms, the Japanese nationals were the lowest in job satisfaction while the Americans were the highest, and
Japanese-Americans were in the middle. As these groups were represented in the same organizations, they concluded that cultural dispositions produced the differences in job satisfaction.
Lincoln (1989) suggested that:
low job satisfaction in Japan may imply a restless striving for perfection, an
ongoing quest for fulfillment of lofty work values and company goals. By the
same token, American observers have cautioned that the high percentages of the
U.S. wodcforce routinely reporting satisfaction with their jobs may be more cause
for concern than complacency. It may signal low expectations and aspirations, a
willingness to settle for meager job rewards, and a preoccupation with leisure
time pursuits, (p. 92)
In addition, Lincoln (1989) proposed that:
51 the Japan-U.S. differences in work attitudes we found are due, not to real cultural
contrasts in work motives and values, but to measurement biases. Many would
argue that a distinctly American impulse is to put the best face on things, to be
upbeat and cheerful, to appear in control and successful even when uncertainty is
high and the future looks bleak. The Japanese, it appears, bias their assessments in
the opposite direction. From the Japanese mother who turns aside praise of her
child’s piano playing with: “ie, mada heta desu!” (no, it is still bad) to the
Japanese politicians who, despite Japan’s booming economy, persist in protesting
the country’s weak and dependent posture in world affairs — the Japanese seem to
color their evaluations of nearly everything with a large dose of pessimism,
humility, and understatement, (p. 92)
Cole (1979) advanced a similar argument by stating that “lower job satisfaction in
Japan is no surprise given the high value, and hence the high expectations, which the
Japanese place on work activities” (p. 238).
Wakabayashi and Kido (1986) proposed the following reasons for the low job satisfaction and organizational commitment among Japanese workers:
1) The Objective labor condition is lower than in other countries,
2) Japanese expectation toward work performance is higher than that of workers
in other countries,
3) Cultural differences exist between Japan and other countries in terms of
emotional expression.
52 4) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are a function of life
satisfaction which may differ between the two groups, and
5) Japanese are strongly affected by work stress.
One recurring debate in cross-national comparisons is the relative effects of cultural imperatives and requirements of perfonnance in particular settings (e g.. Cole,
1979; Vertinsky, Tse, Wehrung & Lee, 1990). One view holds that the cultural characteristics would be the dominant influence in worker reactions to jobs, organization, and/or occupation. From this perspective, it could be expected that Japanese coaches would have significantly different levels of job satis&ction. Based on previous studies, it could also be expected that Japanese coaches would express lower levels ofjob satisfaction.
The contrasting view holds that those who employ similar technologies and operate under similar performance requirements are likely to express similar attitudes toward their jobs, their organizations, and/or occupations. Although both the American and Japanese subjects of the present study are involved in the same occupation, they may not be ail subjected to the same performance requirements. For example, the pressure to perform is far greater in Division I athletics than in Division EU. The Japanese coaches are likely to be similar to Division EU coaches in terms of pressure to perform. Therefore, it could be expected that Division I coaches would differ fiom Division EU and Japanese coaches in their reactions to the job.
53 CHAPTERS
METHODS
Purpose of the Study
The primary purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the dimensionality of job satisfaction among Japanese and American collegiate coaches and to develop a psychometrically valid scale of satisfaction in coaching, (b) identify significant differences among Division I, Division HE, and Japanese coaches in their job satisfaction and organizational and occupational commitments, and (c) explore the relationships between facets of satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational commitments.
Respondents
The questionnaires were mailed to 1000 coaches of six sports in Division I, 1000 coaches in Division m American universities, and 514 coaches of seven sports in
Japanese universities. The selected sports were those included in the World University
Games, namely basketball, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and gymnastics.
54 In addition, judo coaches in Japanese universities were included because of the popularity of the sport in Japan.
American coaches. All coaches of voU^ball and gymnastics listed in the
Division I directory of coaches were sent the questionnaire because of the low number of coaches in these sports. In the case of other sports in Division I and all selected sports in
Division m , a random sample of coaches stratified by sport (Frankel & Wallen, 1993) was selected to make up a total 1000 coaches each fiom Division I and Division m institutions. Of theses 432 coaches fi’om Division I universities (43.2%) and 468 coaches fiom Division lH universities (46.8%) returned the questionnaire in usable form.
It has been shown that non-respondents are likely to be very similar to late respondents. It is also said that if late respondents were not different fiom early respondents, it could be concluded that the results are generalizable to the population
(Miller & Smith, 1983). Based on this line of reasoning, the late respondents and early respondents were compared on each one of the satisAction and commitment items.
Because of the large number of comparisons to be made (t-tests), the alpha level was set at .01. Of the possible 112 comparisons, there was no significant difference in Division I and only one significant difference in Division m between respondents and non respondents. With this virtually no significant difference, it was concluded that the non respondents were not different from the respondents. Further, as the return percentage was sufficiently high (43.2 % in Division I and 46.8% in Division HI), no fbllow-up mailings were made in the case of non-responding American coaches.
55 Japanese coaches. In the case o f Japanese universities, we requested the college sport section in each national sport-governing body for a list of coaches in intercollegiate athletics. Given the low number of coaches in these lists (n=5I4), questionnaires were sent to all of them. As the number of questionnaires returned by the first deadline was rather low (n=201), follow-up letters were sent to all coaches because the respondents could not be identified foom the non-respondents. This process resulted in an additional
70 coaches sending the completed questionnaire. Thus, the total number of Japanese coaches responding to the questionnaire was 271 for a response rate o f 52.7 per cent. As in the case of American coaches, the late respondents were compared to the early respondents on all satisfaction and commitment items. Of the possible 112 comparisons between early and late respondents, there were no significant differences. Therefore, it was concluded that the results of the present data were generalizable to the population.
The distribution of respondents by group (Division I, Division m , and Japan), gender of coach, and sport type are presented in Table 2. The respondents’ age ranged from 25 to 77 for a mean of 41.7 among Division I coaches, from 22 to 70 for a mean of
39.7 among Division HI coaches, from 22 to 76 for a mean of 43.8 among Japanese coaches. A majority of Division I coaches (61.2%) and Division HI coaches (66.5%) had a master’s degree, while 70.0% of the Japanese coaches had a bachelor’s degree.
The mean years of coaching was 17.9 years among Division I coaches, 15.7 years in
Division HI coaches, and 17.2 years among Japanese coaches. These and other demographic details are presented in Table 3.
5 6 Dwisianl OwiiianHI Japan hWe rentals Unknown ToW Mek Fameie Unknown ToW Mala Famak ToW BaskettaB 44 27 71 94 53 2148 36 2 38 62% 38% 63% 36% 1% 96% 6%
Swimming 47 11 SB 53 29 82 22 5 27 81% 19% 86% 36% 81% 19%
Tennis 66 21 87 33 22 6 61 28 0 28 76% 24% 54% 36% 10% 100% 0%
Trade & Raid 70 10 80 58 10 1 68 65 2 57 88% 13% 84% 14% 1% 96% 4%
VaOeytaO 30 49 79 19 42 61 « 4 46 38% 62% 31% 88% 91% 9%
Gymnastics 31 13 44 3 4 7 39 7 46 70% 30% 43% 57% 85% 15%
Cross Country 2 2 8 0 8 100% 0% 100% 0%
Judo 27 0 27 100% 0%
Others 2 2 17 8 26 1 1
Missing 6 1 2 9 3 1 2 6 1
TOTAL 296 134 2 432 288 168 11 468 250 20 271
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Gender and Sport
57 Division I Division m Japan N=432 (%) N=468 (%) N=271 (%) Age 41.7 39.71 43.77
G ender Male 296 68.8 288 63.0 250 92.3 Female 134 31J 169 37.0 21 7.7 Missing 2 11 Degree Bachelor's 147 34.3 119 25.8 189 69.7 Master's 262 61.2 307 66.5 74 2 7 J Doctoral 18 1 35 7.6 4 1.5 Other 4 J1 7 .2 4 1.5 Areaof Stndy Sport (FE) 172 (122) 39.8 184(132) 39J 183(115) 673 Education 63 14.6 61 13.0 4 1.5 Management (Spent 69(33) 16.0 84(33) 17.9 10 (1) 3.7 Management) Other 128 29.6 139 29.7 74 273 Coaching Certificate Yes 259 63.5 212 47.0 106 39.6 No 149 36.5 239 53.0 162 60.4 \Cssing 24 17 3 Faculty Yes 85 19.8 223 48.0 184 68.1 No 345 80.2 242 50.0 86 3>9 Missing 2 3 1 Type of Distitntion Public / State 292 68.4 67 14.4 55 20.3 Private 135 31.6 397 85.6 216 79.7 Missing 5 4 Years of Coaching 17.9 15.7 17.2 Years at Institution 9.4 8.6 13.8 Hoars of Coaching/week 49.1 39.4 21.5
Table 3: Demographic Information by Coaches (Continued)
58 Table 3: (Coatumed)
Divisioiil Oivisûmni Japan
N=432 (%) N=468 C /o) N=271 (%) Level as Coach Tnfematirwial 148 3 4 J 47 10.0 111 41.0 N atknal 205 47^ 236 50.4 138 50.9 R ^ o n a l 57 13J 104 22.2 9 33 Local 9 2.1 70 15.0 7 2.6 Other 13 3.0 11 2.4 6 2.2 Experience as Athlete Yes 429 99.5 462 99.8 257 94.8 No 2 j 1 2 14 5.2 NGssing 1 5
Level as Athlete Tiwematiftnal 103 23.8 42 9.0 99 36.5 National 143 33.1 152 32.5 132 48.7 R ^ o n a l 62 14.4 82 17.5 19 7.0 Universi^ 106 24.5 167 35.7 6 2.2 Ifi^Sdiool 17 3.9 20 4 J 1 .4 Other 1 2 5 1.1 14 5.2
59 Instrument
The questionnaire, shown in Appendix A & B, consisted of three parts: demographic information. Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the General Index of
Work Commitment.
Demographic Information The first part elicited background information which included gender, age, degree, sport coached, years o f coaching experience, amount of coaching time, type of affiliated school (private or public school), and employment status of the coach (faculty, administrator, graduate student, or alumna). The distribution of subjects on selected demographic characteristics are shown in Table 3.
Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire ICSOI. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 81 items to measure satisfaction with various focets of coaching. The development of the questionnaire for this study was carried out in three stages. In the first stage, a set of meaningful items reflecting satisfaction with various aspects of coaching was collated through a comprehensive review of the literature including the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), the Job
Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and the Athlete Satisfaction
Questionnaire (EUemer, 1995). In addition, the investigators generated a set o f hems deemed relevant to the coaching context. Fifty-eight items to represent 28 aspects of coaching were selected for the first version o f the Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
60 (CSQ). A panel of experts including 8 coaches, and 5 professors and 4 doctoral students in sport management scrutinized and provided feedback on the identified fiicets and the
corresponding items. Based on their feedback, an additional 23 items were added, for a total 81 items to measure satisfection with various aspects o f coaching.
The 81 items were randomly distributed and the stem preceding the items was worded as: “How satisfied are you with.” The respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they were satisfied with each item on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 9 (very satisfied).
The second stage was concerned with the translation of the English version of the
Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire into the Japanese language. This process was largely dictated by Brislin’s (1970) guidelines. According to Brislin (1970), back-translation is conducted as follows:
Two bilinguals are then employed, one translating firom the source to the
target language, the second blindly translating back fi-om the target to the
source. The investigator now has two versions in the original language,
which, if they are identical, suggest that the target version firom the middle
of the process is equivalent to the source language forms. The word
“suggest” is used, since several fectors besides good translation can create
seeming equivalence between source, target and back-translated versions.
(p.186)
61 Following this suggestion, three bilingual experts translated the English version
into the Japanese language. Any discrepancies among the three Japanese translations
were resolved through consultations among the three translators and the investigators,
and a single Japanese version was formulated for back translation.
In the third stage, three other bilinguals were requested to translate the single
version of the Japanese translation back into English. The three versions of the back-
translated CSQ were compared by the investigators and were found to be comparable to
each other and to the original English version. Thus, the Japanese version was deemed to
be equivalent to the English version and was administered to the Japanese coaches in the
present study.
The strategy was to explore the dimensionality (i.e., facets) of coaches’
satisfaction in each group (Division I, Division HI, and Japanese coaches) through principal component analyses, and to derive a common set of dimensions (facets), and corresponding items for comparative purposes. The identified facets and their items are described in the next chapter titled “Results”.
General Index of Work Commitment. The third part of the questionnaire was the
31-item General Index of Work Commitment of Blau, Paul, and St. John (1993) which measures Occupational Commitment (II items). Job Involvement (7 items). Value of
Work (7 items), and Organizational Commitment (6 items). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item on a scale ranging fi'om “strongly agree,” “moderately agree,” “slightly agree,” “slightly disagree,” “moderately disagree,”
62 to “strongly disagree.” Blau et al. (1993) reported reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) of .91 for Occupational Commitment, .83 for Job Involvement, .81 for Value of work, .82 for Organizational Conunitment. The values derived from the present data and the definitions of each subscale are shown in Table 4. These values are sufficiently high and consistent with those reported in previous literature.
Analvses
The statistical analyses were concerned with (a) verifying the subscale structure of the Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire in the three sets of data (Division I, Division HI, and Japanese coaches) and deriving a common set of facets and corresponding items for comparative purposes, and (b) testing sub-group differences in facets of satisfaction and commitment.
Sub-scale structure of Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire. Principal component analyses were carried out with each data set (Division I, Division m , and Japanese data) with the extraction criterion of minimum eigen value o f one. For comparison of the three groups on satisfaction, it was decided to extract the same number of components from
63 Factors Division I Division m Japan
Occupational Commitment .87 .85 .84
Organizational Commitment .80 .81 .73
Job Involvement .69 .74 .66
Value o f Work .84 .83 .84
Definitions Occupational Commitment: “a person’s belief in acceptance of the values of his or her chosen occupation or line of work, and a willingness to maintain membership in that occupation” (Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994; p. 535).
Organizational Commitment: “a belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of the employing organization, and a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization and to maintain organizational membership” (Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994; p. 536).
Job Involvement: “the degree of daily absorption an individual experiences in work activity” (Morrow & Wirth; 1989, p.43).
Value of Work: Protestant work ethic which is the belief that hard work is intrinsically good and an end in itself (Blau et al., 1993).
Table 4: Definitions and Reliability Estimates of Subscales of Work Commitment
64 each data set as the lowest number of Actors extracted in the three data sets. Further, it was also decided to select those hems that had a high loading in all three data sets.
Sub-group differences. In order to compare the three groups (Division I, Division m , and Japanese coaches) on the satisfaction Acets and forms of commitment, two separate MANOVAs were carried out with the groups (three levels of Division I,
Division IQ, and Japanese coaches) as the independent Actor and selected Acets of satisfaction (or commitment variables) as the dependent variables. Follow-up univariate
ANOVAs and Tukey’s post hoc analyses were employed to identify the specific instances where the sub-groups differed.
Job satisfaction-cnmTnitment relationships. Based on the notion that satisfaction is antecedent to commitment (Martin & Bennett, 1996), the organizational and occupational commitment variables were regressed on the job satisfaction Acets.
65 CHAPTER4
RESULTS
The primary purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the dimensionality o f job satisfaction among Japanese and American collegiate coaches and to develop a
psychometrically sound scale of satisfaction in coaching, (b) identify significant
differences among Division I, Division UL and Japanese coaches in their job satisfaction
and organizational and occupational commitments, and (c) explore the relationships
between facets of satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational
commitments. Accordingly, the results are presented in three sections. The first section
outlines the analyses carried out to verify the dimensionality of the Coach Satisfaction
Questionnaire in the three data sets (Division L Division IQ, and Japanese coaches) and the identification of the common set of factors and items for the purposes of comparing the three groups on their satisfaction with selected facets. The second section reports the results of the multivariate and univariate ANOVAs performed to assess sub-group differences in satisfaction and commitment. The third section reports the results of the
66 regression analyses carried out to identify the satisfaction facets that contributed
significantly to the four forms of commitment.
Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
As noted earlier principal component analysis was carried out in each data set—
Division I (n=432). Division HI (n=468), and Japanese (n=271) coaches. The results of
these three analyses are presented in Appendix C, D, E, F, and G. With the criterion of
eigen value of one, 14 factors emerged in the data of Division 1 coaches. These factors
cumulatively explained a total of 69.9 % of the variance in the data. Seventeen factors
emerged in Division III data explaining a total of 69.5% variance. In the Japanese data
18 factors explained a total of 77.0% variance. Eleven of the factors were similar across
all three data sets, although the order of the factors differed in the three samples. That is,
the same items had high loadings on comparable factors. However, as there were only 14
factors in Division I data, additional items belonging to other factors in Division m and
Japanese data had high loadings in the identified 11 common factors of Division I data
set.
The emergence different number of factors in the three data sets show that the dimensionality of job satisfaction varied in the three groups. For comparative purposes, however, it was decided to extract 14 factors in all data sets as that was the minimum number in the three solutions. The 14-factor solution explained 69.9%, 65.5%, and
64.6% of the variance in the data of Division I, Division m , and Japanese coaches
67 respectively. It was also decided to select only those items that loaded the highest on the respective Actors in all three data sets. This criterion was met in the case of II of the 14 extracted Actors. Thus, it was decided to exclude the three Actors that did not have any item loading the highest in all three data sets.
The selected eleven Actors, items and their loadings are shown in Table 5. These eleven factors represent the facets of satisAction common to coU ^ate coaches in both countries, and are interpreted below.
Supervision. This facet is measured by 5 items referring to the way in which the supervisor handles his or her employees, delegates work to others, provides feedback, and to his or her competence. Thus, this facet was named Supervision. The loadings of these items were higher than .7 in all data sets.
Coaching Job. The seven items loading on this Actor reflected the meaningfulness and significance o f the job, and the sense of pride, enjoyment, and accomplishment one gets out of coaching. The Acet was named Coaching Job. The loadings for 5 of the seven items were all above .5, the remaining two items had loadings of over .35.
Autonomy. This six-item facet refers to the independence from others, the responsibility over one’s work, the freedom of decision making and judgement, and the
68 DI D m JPN
Supervision (FI, FI, F5)*
14.*’ The way my siq)eivisor bandies his/her enq)loyees. .90 .91 .80 15. The compétence of my siqiervisor in maldng decisions. .89 .89 .83 48. The personal relationshq) between o^sq)eTvisor and his/her enq>Ioyees. .85 .88 .70 49. The wi^nqr supervisor delegates work to olhers. .83 .87 .77 62. The kedbadc I get 6om n y si^ieriors. .84 .78 .71
Coaching Job (F2, F2, F6)
67. The pride I get &om coaching. .80 .78 .50 32. The enjoyment I get out of coaching. .71 .77 .56 54. The feeling of accomplishment I get fiom coaching .78 .76 .60 75. The meaningfulness of the job I do. .74 .69 .66 79. The significance of the job I do. .64 .54 .74 21. Being active much of the time. .40 39 .44 55. Being able to keep busy all the time. .50 35 .59
Autonomy (F3, F3, F2)
42. The chance to work independently of others. .81 .78 .71 52. The responsibiliQr I have over n ^ own work .66 .72 35 41. The chaoce to try my own methods in coaching .78 .72 .62 18. The freedom to use my own judgement in coaching .71 .64 .51 43. The chance to do things that don’t harm other people. .71 .54 .54 9. Being able to do things that do not go against my conscience. .38 .59 .48
Facilities (F4, F4, FT)
26. The quality o f the Polities for my team .87 .89 .80 73. The adequacy of Acilities for ny team. .88 .88 .83 78. The scheduling of &cOities for n y team. .54 .52 .71
Media & Community Support (F5, F6, F8)
28. The media's coverage of ny team. .81 .84 .67 63. The media's support for n y team. .84 .83 .69 64. The local community's sq>port for n y team. .70 .78 .55
Pay (F6.F7.F3)
38. My pay compared to the amount of work I do. .51 .77 .66 4. How my pay compares with those for similar jobs in other .58 .76 .70 colleges/universities.
Table 5: Factor Loadings of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets in Division I, IE, and Japan. (Continued)
69 Table 5: (Continued)
Team Performance (F7, F7, F2) D I D m JPN
71. Nfy team’s pedbnnance during regular season. .77 .7 9 .74 72. The degree to wfamh my team members share dm same goat .52 .71 .77 56. My Wami’g in rhampnmehips^imaimaifg .78 .71 .76 22. Tbeinqsovement in m^ team’s perfimnanoe. .72 .69 .72 24. How my team works to the best .54 .64 .70
Amount of Work (F9, F8, F9)
68. The amount of pqier work Ihave to do. .85 .74 .63 80. The administiative duties I have to perktnn. .68 .74 .42 33. The amount ofwmk I have to do. .68 J 8 .61
CoUeagnes (F10,FI1,F13)
S. The level of cooperation among coadies in nyunivetsi^/wdl^e. .79 .82 J 5 39. The wry coaches in nrycoH^e/uinversiQr get altmgwidieadiodmr. .76 .81 .67 70. The fiiendsfaqiwidi other coaches. .69 .70 J1
Athletes* Academic Progress (F1I,FI0,F12)
30. The academic progress of my athletes. .84 .83 .80 65. How well 117 athletes do in their smdies. .88 .82 .81
Job Security (F12, F13, F3)
45. The way coaching provides for steadÿ employment .60 .42 .71 11. hfyjobsecm i^. .70 .40 .73
* Factor number in Division I, DtvisionlH, and Japan data respectiveiy. Number of die item in Ae instrument
DI: Division I DID: Division ID JPN: Jtqan
70 chance not to hann others. The facet was labeled Autonomy. The loadings of four items
were greater that .5 and the sixth item had a loading o f 38.
Facilities. As this three-item 6cet reflected the quality, adequacy, and scheduling
of facilities, it was named Facilities. The minimum loading of these items was .52.
Media and Communitv Support. As this three-item facet refers to the media
coverage of the team and the support received from both the media and the community, it
was named Media & Communitv Support. The minimum loading was .55.
Pay. The two items in this facet reflect the satisfaction with one’s Pav in relation
to the amount of work done and in comparison to similar jobs in other universities. The minimum loading was .51.
Team Performance. The five hems in this fecet referred to the team’s performance during the season and championships, performance improvements, and sharing the same goal. Thus, it was named Team Performance. The minimum loading was .54.
Amount of Work. The three items in this facet refer to the total work one has to do including paper work and administrative duties. Accordingly h was named Amount of
Work. The minimum loading was .42.
71 Colleagues. The three items in this facet with a miftimum loading of .51 refer to the cooperation and friendship among the coaches of the focal university and, thus, was named Colleagues.
Athletes' Academic Progress. This two-item facet reflects the academic progress of one’s athletes and their performance in studies and, therefore, it was labeled Athletes’
Academic Progress. The lowest loading was .80.
Job Security. The final facet labeled. Job Security, is focused on coaching as a steady employment and job security. The lowest loading was .40.
Reliability Estimates
The reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the eleven subscales in each data set are shown in Table 6. Seven of these values were over .90, 19 over .80, six over .70, and one over .64. While these values are acceptable, it should be noted that the reliability estimates were lower in the Japanese data than in the other two data sets.
72 JOB SATISFACTION FACETS DIVISION I DIVISION m JAPAN
1. SUPERVISION .95 .95 .90
2. COACHING JOB .89 .85 .87
3. AUTONOMY .89 -84 .81
4. FACILITIES .87 .83 .85
5. MEDIA & COMMUNITY SUPPORT .89 .91 .79
6. PAY .91 .88 .80
7. TEAM PERFORMANCE .89 .85 .89
8. AMOUNT OF WORK .81 .75 .64
9. COLLEAGUES .86 .85 .75
10. ATHLETES’ ACADEMIC PROGRESS .93 .90 .83
11. JOB SECURITY .79 .74 .73
Table 6; Reliability Estimates for Scales of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets
73 Correlations Among Satisfaction Subscales.
Although orthogonal rotation was employed in the principal component analyses, orthogonality was lost because only a few high loading items were selected to represent a factor. Therefore, it was necessary to assess the correlations among the subscales. The simple correlations are reproduced in Table 7, 8, and 9. Of the 66 correlations, only two exceeded the value of .5 but less than .6 in the data of the Division n coaches. Three correlations were over .5 in the data of Division I coaches with two of them exceeding .6.
Given ±at the highest correlation of .65 accounted for a shared variance of only 42%, it was concluded that the 11 subscales were independent of each other.
Sub-Group Differences in Job Satisfaction and Work Commitment
As noted earlier, two separate MANOVAs were carried out to test the significance of the differences among the Division I, Division EQ, and Japanese coaches in job satisfaction and work commitment. As the multivariate effect was significant in each case, univariate analyses (ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc analysis) were performed.
74 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. SUPERVISION 1.00
2. COACHINOJOB .32 1.00
3. AUTONOMY .34 .65 1.00
4. FACILITIES .40 .32 .25 1.00
5. MEDIA AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT .44 .26 .10 .40 1.00
6, PAY .48 .24 .17 .46 .46 LOG
7. TEAM PERFORMANCE .27 .63 .46 .33 .24 .18 1.00
8. AMOUNT OF WORK .32 .45 .31 .28 .30 .36 .27 1.00
ù( 9. COLLEAGUES .47 .43 .36 .32 .25 .29 .30 .34 1.00
10. ATHLETES' ACADEMIC PROGRESS .04 .31 .32 .10 .01 -.04 .42 .11 .16 1.00
II. JOB SECURITY .51 .38 .37 .38 .35 .43 .32 .34 .39 .15 1.00
Table 7; Correlation Matrix of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets in Division I Coaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II
1. SUPERVISION 1.00
2. COACHINOJOB .30 1.00
3, AUTONOMY .29 .56 1.00
4. FACILITIES .34 .23 ,27 1,00
5. MEDIA AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT .36 ,29 ,23 ,32 1,00
6. PAY ,31 ,22 ,21 ,31 ,39 1.00
7. TEAM PERFORMANCE .20 ,50 ,33 ,26 ,25 ,16 1.00
8. AMOUNT OF WORK .31 ,42 ,34 ,32 .39 ,41 .22 1.00
9. COLLEAGUES .41 ,30 ,31 ,30 .29 .32 .16 .26 1.00
10. ATHLETES' ACADEMIC PROGRESS .02 .17 ,20 .14 .01 .07 .26 .13 .11 1.00 n . JOB SECURITY .39 .33 ,44 .27 .37 .44 .30 .39 .32 .15 ).00
Table 8; Correlation Matrix of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets in Division III Coaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. SUPERVISION 1.00
2. COACHINOJOB .37 1.00
3. AUTONOMY .31 .67 1.00
4. FACILITIES .30 .34 .27 1.00
5. MEDIA AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT .34 .29 ,17 .29 1,00
6. PAY .49 .23 .23 .28 .27 1.00
7. TEAM PERFORMANCE .31 .53 .42 ,34 .41 .21 1.00
8. AMOUNT OF WORK .40 .46 .42 ,33 .31 ,38 .28 1,00
:y 9. COLLEAGUES .31 .40 .31 .32 .37 .36 .43 .30 1.00
10. ATHLETES' ACADEMIC PROGRESS .10 .26 .18 .09 .25 .05 .30 .24 .18 1.00
ll.JOBSECURrrY .33 .31 .35 .37 .23 ,54 .22 .28 .32 .02 1.00
Table 9; Correlation Matrix of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets in Japan Coaches Job Satisfaction
The means and standard deviations for the 11 subscales are provided in Table 8.
The grouping variable (Division I, Division HI, and Japanese coaches) had a significant
multivariate effect on the 11 subscales of satisfaction (Wilk’s lambda=.547; F(22, 2278)
=36.40, g < 001). Significance of the differences in each facet is also shown in Table 10.
Supervision. The subgroups did not differ in their satisfaction with Supervision
(F(2)= 2.85, g > .05). The means were 5.79, 5.67, and 5.41 for Division I, Division HI,
and Japanese coaches respectively.
Coaching Job. The grouping variable had a significant effect on satisfaction with the Coaching Job (F(2)= 43.25, g < .001). The Japanese coaches (M=6.87) were significantly less satisfied with their job than their counterparts in Division I (M=7.62). and Division HI (7.56).
Autonomv. There was a significant difference among the groups in satisfaction with Autonomy (F(2)= 160.09; g < .001). Japanese coaches (M=6.75) were less satisfied than Division I (M=8.0I) and Division HI (M=8.00).
78 Job Satisfaction Facet Division i Division lii Japan Signlflcance n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD DI vs Dill DI vs Dill vs JP JP 1 SUPERVISION 430 5.79 2.13 467 5.67 2.15 255 5.41 1.67
2 COACHINOJOB 430 7.62 1.11 467 7.56 1.02 255 6.87 1.23
3 AUTONOMY 430 8.01 1.00 467 8.00 .85 255 6.75 1.20
4 FACILITIES 430 5.63 2.28 467 5.74 2.21 255 5.34 2.14
5 MEDIA & COMMUNITY SUPPORT 430 4.03 2.03 467 3.83 1.88 255 4.02 1.56
6 PAY 430 4.38 2.34 467 4.50 2.34 255 4.33 2.00
7 TEAM PERFORMANCE 430 6.89 1.42 467 6.82 1.31 255 5.89 1.56
8 AMOUNTOFWORK 430 5.49 1.88 467 5.82 1.70 255 5.43 1.37 A **
9 COLLEAGUES 430 6.83 1.59 467 6.73 1.70 255 5.47 1.65 ###
10 ATHLETES'ACADEMIC PROGRESS 430 7.61 1.29 467 7.56 1.23 255 5.18 1.57 A##
11 JOB SECURITY 430 6.10 2.08 467 6.15 1.99 255 5.02 2.15 *A* AAA
DI : Division I Coaches Dill: Division ill Coaches JP: Japanese Coaches * p< .05 •* p< .01 p< .001
Table 10; Means and Standard Deviations of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets Among Division I, III, and Japanese Coaches. Facilities. There was no significant effect of group on Facilities (F(2)= 2.75,
p > .05). The means were 5.63, 5.74, and 5.34 among Division I, Division m , and
Japanese coaches respectively.
Media and Communitv Support. The grouping variable did not have a significant
effect on satisfaction with Media and Community Support QF(2)= 1.50, p > .05). The
means were 4.03,3.83, and 4.02 for the Division I, Division DI, and Japanese coaches respectively.
Pav. The effect of the grouping variable on satisfaction with Pay was not significant (F(2)= .574, p > 05). The means were 4.38, 4.50, and 4.33 respectively for
Division I, and Division U, and Japanese coaches.
Team Performance. The groups differed in their satisfaction with Team
Performance (F(2)= 46.24, p < .001). Division I coaches (M=6.89) and Division ID coaches (M=6.82) were significantly more satisfied than the Japanese coaches (M=5.89).
Amount of Work. The groups differed significantly in their satisfaction with the
Amount of Work (F(2)=6.12, p< 05). Division ID coaches (M=5.82) were significantly more satisfied with the Amount of Work than Division I coaches (M=5.49) and Japanese coaches (M=5.43).
80 Colleagues. The groups differed significantly in their satisfaction with their
Colleagues ( F(2)=63.49, p < .001). Japanese coaches (M=5.47) were significantly lower
in satisfaction than Division I (M=6.83) and Division HI (M=6.73) coaches.
Athletes’ Academic Progress. There was a significant difference among the
groups in their satisfaction with Athletes’ Academic Progress (F(2)=323.02, p < .001).
Japanese coaches (M=5.18) were significantly less satisfied than Division 1 (M=7.61) and
Division III (M = 7.56) coaches.
Job Securitv. There was a significant difference among the groups in satisfaction
with Job Security (F(2)=28.69, p<001). Japanese coaches (M=5.02) were significantly
lower than Division 1 (M=6.10) and Division HI (M=6.15) coaches.
Work Commitment
As noted earlier, the General Index of Work Commitment measures (a) organizational commitment, (b) occupational commitment, (c) job involvement, and (d) value of work. The means and standard deviations by subgroups are provided in Table
11. The multivariate ANOVA showed that the grouping variable had a significant effect on the 4 work commitment factors (Wilk’s lambda= .915; F (8, 2326)= 13.28, p < .001).
The results of follow-up univariate analyses (ANOVA and Tukey procedures) are explicated below.
81 Work Commitment Factors Division i Division ili Japan Signincance n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD DIvs 01 OIIIvs Dill VB JP JP
Occupational Commitment 432 4.83 .91 487 4.92 .87 270 4.42 .79 «**
Organizational Commitment 432 4.08 1.08 487 3.95 1.10 270 4.27 .81 * ###
Job Involvement 432 3.61 1.08 487 3.59 1.03 270 3.53 .92
Value of Work 432 4.12 .81 487 4.03 .84 270 4.00 .72
01 ; Division i Coaches Dill; Division iii Coaches JP; Japanese Coaches * p<.05 p< .01 n **• p<.001
Table 11 : Means and Standard Deviations o f 4 Work Commitment Factors Among Division I, III, and Japanese Coaches. Occupational Commitment. There was a significant difference among the
groups in Occupational Commitment (F(2)=29.48, p < .001). Japanese coaches (M=4.4)
were significantly lower in their commitment to the occupation than Division I (M=4.8)
and Division EQ (M=4.9) coaches.
Organizational Commitment. There was a significant difference among the groups
in Organizational Commitment (F(2)=8.13, p<.001). Japanese coaches (M=4.3) were
significantly higher in their commitment to their organizations than Division I (M=4.1)
and Division HI (M=3.9) coaches.
Job Involvement. There was no significant difference among the groups in Job
Involvement (F(2)=.48, g >.05). Division I coaches (M=3.61) and Division III coaches
(M=3.59) are similar to Japanese coaches (M=3.53) in terms of Job Involvement.
Value o f Work. There was also no significant difference among the groups in
Value of Work (F(2)=2.28, g >.05). Division I (M=4.12), Division HI (M=4.12), and
Japanese (M=4.00) coaches were similar in terms of Value of Work.
Job Satisfaction and Commitments
One o f the purposes of this research was to investigate the relationships between job satisfaction facets and organizational and occupational commitments among the three
83 sets of coaches. The correlations between the two sets of variables are provided in Table
12. In order to assess the unique and cumulative effects of satisAction 6cets on the organizational and occupational commitment variables, stepwise r%ression analyses were carried out (see Tables 13, 14, IS, 16,17, and 18). These results are described below.
Correlational Analyses
Organizational Commitment. All job satisAction 6cets, except satisfaction with athletes’ academic progress, were significantly correlated with Organizational commitment in Division I and Japanese data. In Division IH all satisfaction facets were significantly correlated with organizational commitment (see Table 12).
Occupational Commitment- All satisâction facets, except athletes’ academic progress, were significantly correlated with occupational commitment in the data of
Division I coaches. In the data of Division m coaches, however, a fewer number of satisfaction facets—supervision, coaching job, autonomy, team performance, amount of work colleagues and job security—were significantly correlated, ht the Japanese data, all facets except two—âcilities and job security—were significantly correlated with occupational commitment (see Table 12).
84 Division I Job invoiviiMnt OeeupaHonaf Ofganiatfaml ^AhworWdrtc ## SUPERVISION .23 .42 .12 .10 «# .15 COACHING JOB .53 .39 .16 ## AUTONOMY .30 .24 .11 .08 FACILITIES .15 .34 .02 .06 MEDIA & COMMUNITY SUPPORT .17 .31 .10 .13 .19 PAY .19 .33 .19 TEAM PERFORMANCE .32 .28 .05 .12 .10 amount OF WORK 23 .25 .13 COLLEAGUES 26 .46 .13 .08 -.09 ATHLETES- ACADEMIC PROGRESS .04 .05 -.12 .10 JOB SECURITY .29 .32 .14
Division III Job Invoivemont Occupational OrganfeaBonal Value ofWocfc .14 SUPERVISION 22 .40 .10 • COACHING JOB .58 .34 .18 .17 .10 autonomy 29 2 6 .06 -.02 FACILITIES .07 .35 -.05 .10 MEDIA 4 COMMUNITY SUPPORT .15 .34 .08 .36 -.01 .05 PAY .13 .02 TEAM PERFORMANCE 25 .01 27 .12 AMOUNT OF WORK 23 .32 .18 .36 .08 .11 COLLEAGUES .19 -.02 ATHLETES-ACADEMIC PROGRESS .10 -.03 .07 .12 JOB SECURITY 25 .36 ** .07
Japan Job Involvement Occupational OrganizaSonal Value of Wortc .14 SUPERVISION 2 9 .33 .13 .19 COACHING JOB .54 .34 .21 .15 .10 autonomy .39 2 8 2 3 .16 .17 FACILITIES .12 .20 MEDIA & COMMUNITY SUPPORT .12 .16 .16 2 8 .07 .12 PAY .17 .10 .19 ** .13 TEAM PERFORMANCE 2 2 .14 AMOUNT OF WORK .17 ** .12 2 7 .06 COLLEAGUES 2 0 2 3 .14 .09 .13 .07 ATHLETES- ACADEMIC PROGRESS .13 .12 JOB SECURITY .08 2 7 .11
* p< .05 p < .01 •** p< .001
Table 12: Correlations Between 11 Job Satisfaction Facets and 4 Work Commitment Factors
85 STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R2 AR:ADJR: BETA*
1 COLLEAGUES .462 .214 .212 .259***
2 SUPERVISION .517 .268 .054*** .268 .214**
3 COACHING JOB .546 .298 .030*** .293 .242***
4 FACILITIES .557 .310 .012** .304 .124**
5 AUTONOMY .564 .318 .008* .310 .119*
F (5, 424) =39.54, p < .001
* BETA from the final step * p < .05 ♦♦ p<. 01 *** p< .001
Table 13 ; Regression of Organizational Commitment Among Division I Coaches STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R: A R: ADJR: BETA*
I SUPERVISION 403 .163 .161 .176***
2 PAY .475 .226 .063*** .223 .149**
3 COACHING JOB .514 .264 038*** .259 .150**
4 FACILITIES .534 .285 .022*** .279 .142**
5 COLLEAGUES .545 .297 Oil** .289 116*
23 6 JOB SECURITY .552 .304 .008* .295 104*
F (6,459) =33.46, p<.001
‘ BETA from the final step * p < ,05 *♦ p<. 01 *** p< .001
Table 14; Regression of Organizational Commitment Among Division HI Coaches STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R2 A R^ ADJR: BETA"
I COACHING JOB .337 .114 110 .241***
2 SUPERVISION 404 .163 049*** .156 .174*
3 PAY .420 .177 .014* .167 .136*
F (3. 253) = 18.11, p < .001 R
" BETA from the final step * p< .05 *** p<.ODl
Table IS; Regression of Organizational Commitment Among Japanese Coaches STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R: AR:ADJR: BETA"
1 COACHING JOB .528 .279 .277 528***
2 ATHLETES’ ACADEMIC PROGRESS .543 .295 016**.292 -.136**
3 JOB SECURITY .553 .305 .011* .301 111*
F (3, 426) =62.44, p < .001
* BETA from the final step s * p< .05
** p< .01
p< .001
Table 16; Regression of Occupational Commitment Among Division I Coaches STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R: ADJR* BETA"
1 COACHING JOB .580 .336 .335 580***
F (1,465) =235.80, p < .001
• BETA from the final step
S ♦♦♦ p< .001
Table 17; Regression of Occupational Commitment Among Division 111 Coaches STEP VARIABLES ENTERED R R: A R: ADJR: BETA*
1 COACHING JOB .536 .287 .284 .527***
2 SUPERVISION .546 .298 .011* .293 .151**
3 JOB SECURITY .561 .315 017* .307 -142**
F (3. 253) =38.83, p<.001
• BETA from the final step
* P < .05
** p<. 01
*** p< .001
Table 18; Regression of Occupational Commitment Among Japanese Coaches Regression Analyses
As noted b^ore, the regression analyses were restricted to organizational and
occupational commitment variables. Further, these analyses were carried out separately for each of the three groups of coaches.
Organizational Commitment The satisfaction 6cets of colleagues, supervision, coaching job, facilities, and autonomy entered the equation in that order explaining a total of 31.8% of the variance in organizational commitment of Division I coaches. The facet of colleagues explained 21.4% o f the variance by itself (see Table 13).
In Division HI data, the 6cets of supervision, pay, coaching job, facilities, colleagues, and job security entered the equation in that order to «q)lain a total 55.2% of the variance in organizational commitment. The contribution of supervision to the explained variance was the highest (16.3%), while the next highest unique contribution
(6.3%) was by pay (see Table 14).
Only three facets of satisfaction—coaching job, supervision, and pay—entered the equation to explain 17.7% o f the variance in organizational commitment of Japanese coaches. The highest contribution (11.4%) was by coaching job (see Table 15).
Occupational Commitment. The satisfaction facets of coaching job, athletes’ academic progress, and job security made unique contributions to the explained variance occupational commitment of Division I coaches for a total explained variance of 30.5%.
The contribution (27.9%) by coaching job was the highest (see Table 16).
92 In the case of Division HI coaches, only the facet o f coaching job entered the equation explaining 33.6% of the variance in occupational commitment (see Table 17).
Finally, the fecets of coaching job, supervision, and job security entered the equation to explain a total o f 31.5% of the variance in occupational commitment of
Japanese coaches. Coaching job (see Table 18) made the highest contribution (28.7%) to the explained variance.
93 CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION
The primary purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the dimensionality of job satisfaction among Japanese and American collegiate coaches and to develop a psychometrically sound scale of satisfaction in coaching, (b) identify significant differences among Division 1, Division HI, and Japanese coaches in their job satisfaction, and organizational and occupational commitments, and (c) explore the relationships between facets of satisfaction and coaches’ organizational and occupational commitments. The discussion of the results follows the above format after a description of the differences in specific demographic characteristics.
Demographic Differences
There was a significant relationship between educational level and group membership (%"=157.46, Cramer’s V= .26; g_<.001). While more than 60% of the
American coaches had a master’s degree, 70% of the Japanese coaches had only a bachelor’s degree.
94 Further, while 68.1 % of the Japanese coaches were faculty members 80.2% of
Division I coaches and 52% of Division II coaches were not (x^=169.53, Cramer’s V =
.38; g < 001). Another significant demographic relationship among groups was in the gender distribution of respondents (x^ =75.58, Cramer’s V=.26; p < 001). Females constituted 31.2% of Division I coaches and 37.0% of Division HI coaches. In contrast, only 7.7% of the Japanese respondents were females. Because o f the low number of females in the Japanese sample, gender was not used in any of the analyses.
A final characteristic distinguishing the three groups was the number of hours per week spent on coaching (F(2, 1131)= 183.99, p < 001). Post hoc analysis revealed that
Division I coaches spent a significantly higher number of hours (M=49.08) in coaching than Division III coaches (M=39.40) who, in turn, spent more hours than the Japanese coaches (M=21.46). That the Japanese coaches spent only half the time in coaching is consistent with the finding that most Japanese coaches were also faculty members involved in other teaching and administrative tasks.
The foregoing differences in demographics must be kept in mind in discussing the results of the present study. A notable similarity among the three groups is the extent to which the coaches of the three groups were involved at the international and national levels of coaching.
95 Dimensionality of Job Satisfaction
The principal component analyses of the selected 81 items showed that the number of dimensions underlying the items varied in the three groups. There were 14 dimensions in Division I explaining 69.9% of the variance in the data, 17 dimensions in
Division m explaining 69.5% of the variance, and 18 dimensions in the Japanese data explaining 77% of the variance. It is impressive that more than 69% o f the variance in the data was explained in each of the three groups.
The emergence o f different number of Actors do show that the dimensionality of job satisfaction among coaches differs among the three groups—Division I, Division EH, and Japanese coaches. However, a closer look at the emergent Actors and corresponding items (see appendix C, D, E, F, & G) reveals that the substance o f the Actors does not differ very much. In fact, 11 Actors were the same in all three solutions.
In sum, there is considerable conceptual similarity among the three Actor solutions despite the difference in the empirical derivation of different number of factors.
Thus, the decision to extract the same number o f Actors (n=14) in each of the three data sets, and select those items which had a high loading in all three solutions for comparative purposes was justifiable. The 14-factor solution explained 69.9%, 65.5%, and 64.6% of the variance in the data of Division I, Division m , and Japanese coaches respectively. Eleven of these 14 Actors were selected as only they had the same items loading highly in all three solutions. This was not surprising because 11 factors were identified to be similar in the original three solutions with varying number of factors.
% Of the selected 11 Actors, seven are conceptually similar to the satisAction Acets
identified in other contexts while four are unique to Ae coaching context. The satisAction
facets of supervision, coaching job, autonomy, pay, amount o f work, colleagues, job
security are similar to Aose mcluded in JDI, MSQ, and JSS.
The satisAction Acets unique to coaching are Acilhies, media and community
support, team performance, and athletes’ academic progress. As most of a coach’s
critical tasks are performed m an athletic Acility, it is not surprismg that Acility has
emerged as a focus o f satisfaction. One may argue that this Acet of satisAction is similar to working conditions identified as a Acet in Ae industrial and business context. While
such an argument can not be easily dismissed, it must be noted that Ae traditional view
holds that working conAtions may impact on an individual’s personal performance. In our context, however, Ae Acilities impact on Ae training and performance of Ae athletes is contrasted to Ae performance of Ae coach himself or herself. Thus, Ae Acet of facilities has greater significance in coaching than Ae Acet of working conditions in traditional work settings.
One of Ae unique characteristics of athletics is that it is a public emerprise. That is, Ae public is Ascinated wiA Ae pursuit of mccellence m any sport. In addition, a large segment of Ae population in boA countries is sufficiently knowledgeable in various forms of sport. Thus, Aey tend to follow athletic endeavor at Ae higher levels of competition. The awareness and scrutiny extend not only to Ae actual contests but also to how Ae teams are organized and coached. Given this vast interest of Ae community in athletics, it is not surprising that Ae media covers Ae afAirs of athletic teams
97 extensively. Such coverage of a single team may range from very positive evaluation to a
very negative evaluation of the team and hs processes including coaching. The positive
evaluations by the public and media, and the resultant support from such evaluations are
critical to a team and its coach. Thus, it is not surprising that media and community
support has emerged as a significant 6cet of satisfaction.
As noted earlier, a coach’s major responsibility is to enhance the performance
capability of his/her team and its members. Although a team’s performance in a
contest(s) is affected by several other foctors (Coumeya & Chelladurai, 1991), the
different constituencies are likely to attribute a team’s performance to the coaching of that team. From a different perspective, the coach himself / herself would be able to evaluate the performance of the team based on the team’s capabilities, past performance, and the training the athletes have undergone. Such evaluations are made without reference to the actual win or loss in a contest. Both types of evaluations (i.e., evaluation by external agents and evaluation by the coach) are important for the coach. Thus, the team’s performance becomes a critical facet of satisfkctioiL
The subjects of the present study were coaches of intercollegiate athletic teams.
A fundamental purpose of such programs is to provide opportunities for quality education for the athletes. In both cultural contexts, one specific dimension of coaching evaluation is the rate of graduation of athletes. Given that contingency, it is understandable that the athletes’ academic performance has emerged as a focet of satisfaction among coaches.
The reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for all sub scales in all three data sets were high ranging from .73 to .95 (see Table 6). These high reliabilities are encouraging
98 and allow us to place greater confidence in the scale. Although the subscales were factor
analytically derived with orthogonal rotation, oithogonality was lost when only a few
items were selected to represent a Actor. In Act, the correlations among the subscales
were all significant except in the case of the facet o f athletes’ academic progress. The
highest correlations of .65, .67, and .56 were between the Acets o f coaching job and autonomy in the data of Division I, Division m, and Japanese coaches respectively. Yet, the maximum shared variance between the two Acets was only 44.89% in Division m data. The shared variance between any two other Acets was much lower in all three data sets. These results support the uniqueness of each facet.
A note of caution is in order here. Although the selection of 11 Actors for comparative purposes was legitimate, it should not mask the Act that the differences in the dimensionality of job satisAction among the three groups. Thus, any research confined to one group of subjects (e.g.. Division I coaches or Division EQ coaches) would be better served if the original Actor solutions with specific number o f Actors (e.g., 14 factors in Division I and 17 Actors in Division HI) and corresponding items were employed. Along similar lines, gender dififerences in job satisfaction or commitment were not considered in Ae present study because of Ae low number o f females in Ae
Japanese sample. In so far as females are adequately represented m Division I and
Division QI coaching ranks, gender differences may be evaluated m Aose two samples of coaches.
99 Subgroup Differences
The Japanese scored lower than the American coaches in each facet of
satisfaction. However, such differences were not significant in the case of supervision,
facilities, media and community support, and pay. The only difference between Division
I and Division UI coaches was in the amount of work. Division I coaches were less
satisfied with the amount of work than the Division HI coaches.
That the Japanese coaches scored significantly lower than the American coaches
in 7 of 11 facets would appear to support the cultural-influence hypothesis. It was noted
earlier that several studies have shown that Japanese workers tend to score lower than
their counterparts in other countries because their culture is to be less expressive.
However, this suggestion is not consistent with the finding that Japanese coaches did not
differ from American coaches in the level of satisfaction with four of the facets
(supervision, facilities, media and community support, and pay). According to the cultural-influence perspective, the Japanese coaches should have scored lower even in these three dimensions. Thus, the view that the objective conditions surrounding the coaching jobs in Japanese universities are not at the same level as in American universities is equally tenable. This was one of the explanations provided by
Wakabayashi and Kido (1986) for the low satisfaction scores among Japanese workers.
Earlier reports suggested that those who were more educated were likely to be less satisfied with their job than those who were less educated (e.g., Srivastva .,
100 Salipante, Cummings, Notz, Bigelow, & Waters, 1977). The contrast between the
American and Japanese coaches in the levels of job satisfaction runs counter to the above suggestion. Japanese coaches who had, for the most part only a bachelor’s degree, were less satisfied than the American coaches who had, for the most part, a master’s degree.
The present finding, however, is consistent with other studies which found a positive association between job satisfaction and level of education (Hambleton, 1989; Herzberg et al, 1957; Quinn & Mandilowich, 1980). It must be pointed out here that the particular level of education (e.g., bachelor’s degree) in a particular occupation relative to other occupations in one country may be comparable to a higher level degree (e.g., master’s degree) in another country. Therefore, any definitive statement about the present finding can be made only after determining the relative levels of various degrees in the two national contexts.
In order to further explore the differences in satisfaction among the three groups of coaches, rank order correlations (Spearman’s rho) were computed (Table 19). All three rank orders were significantly correlated with each other (Division I-Division III: r
= .96, g < .001; Division I - Japanese: r =.75, g < .01; and Division E - Japanese: r =
.73, g < .01). Given the similarities in the rankings of the facets alongside the consistently lower scores for the Japanese in all facets would appear to support the hypothesis of a cultural influence on expressing one’s attitudes.
It must also be noted that all three groups expressed moderate to high levels of satisfaction (the mean exceeding 5 on a 9-point scale) in 9 o f the 11 scales. The only two
101 RANK Division I Division in Japan
1 AUTONOMY AUTONOMY COACHING JOB
2 COACHING JOB COACHING JOB AUTONOMY
3 ATHLETES’ ACADEMIC ATHLETES’ ACADEMIC TEAM PERFORMANCE PROGRESS PROGRESS 4 TEAM PERFORMANCE TEAM PERFORMANCE COLLEAGUES
5 COLLEAGUES COLLEAGUES AMOUNT OF WORK
6 JOB SECURITY JOB SECURITY SUPERVISION
7 SUPERVISION AMOUNT OF WORK FACILITIES
8 FACILITIES FACIUTIES ATHLETES’ ACADEMIC PROGRESS 9 AMOUNT OF WORK SUPERVISION JOB SECURITY
10 PAY PAY PAY
II MEDIA & COMMUNITY MEDIA & COMMUNITY MEDIA & COMMUNITY SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT
Spearman’s rho : Division I vs Division m r = .96 p<.001 Division I vs Japan r = .75 p<.01 Division lU vs Japan r = .73 p< .01
Table 19: Rank Order of 11 Job Satisfaction Facets among Division I, Division in and Japanese Coaches.
102 exceptions were pay and media and community support where all three groups scored
lower than five. While low satisfaction with pay is said to be an universal phenomenon,
the lower satisfaction with media and community support in all three groups signifies the
importance o f media and the community to the athletic enterprise.
It is also noteworthy that the 6cets of coaching job and autonomy were ranked
the highest in all three groups. That those intrinsic factors o f the job were rated the
highest and pay was ranked tenth is supportive of Herzberg’s two factor theory.
One other difference in ranking o f the Acets was in relation to athletes’ academic
progress. It ranked second in the data of Division I and Division HI coaches, while it
was eighth in the Japanese data. It is not clear if the high ratings of this facet by the
American coaches is a function o f the emphasis placed by American universities and
athletic administrators on academic progress, or if the academic progress of Japanese
athletes is, in fact, poor in relation to other students in Japanese universities.
The foregoing results seem to support both the cultural perspective (i.e., the tendency to express lower feelings of job satisfaction), and the athletic-imperatives perspective (i.e., the tendency to rate satisfaction with most o f the Acets higher than the midpoint of the scale, and to rate them in a similar hierarchical order or ranking). Thus, it is not clear if the low levels o f satisfaction among Japanese coaches is a function of the objective situation surrounding university athletics in Japan or, as noted earlier, simply a cultural phenomenon. Future research should focus on this issue and verify the differences in the objective situation of coaching in Japan. For example, the extent of
103 available facilities, the total budget for a university athletic department, and such other
objective data could prove useful.
As for subgroup differences in organizational and occupational commitments,
both Division I coaches (M=4.83) and Division III coaches (M=4.92) scored higher on
occupational commitment than the Japanese coaches (M=4A2). Despite this difference,
it must be noted that all three groups scored higher than 4.42 on a 6-point scale indicating
that they were all quite committed to their occupation.
In the case of organizational commitment, however, the Japanese coaches
(M=4.27) scored significantly higher than Division I (M=4.06) and Division m coaches
(M=3.95). It must also be noted that coaches in all three groups expressed lower
commitment to their respective organizations than to the coaching occupation.
Satisfaction-Commitment Relationships.
Most of the satisfaction facets were significantly but differentially correlated with
organizational commitment and occupational commitment in all three groups (see Table
12). All facets of satisfaction except athletes' academic progress were almost equally
correlated with organizational commitment in all three data sets. The regression
analyses showed that the facets of coaching job and supervision contributed significantly
to the explained variance in organizational commitment of all three groups of coaches.
That the facet of colleagues was a dominant contributing variable in the data of Division I coaches is perhaps a reflection of the competitiveness among coaches in that setting for
104 status, recognition, budget allocations, facility assignments, and such other resources.
Thus, the quality of interpersonal interactions among coaches is perceived to be a critical
component of the organizational context facilitating organizational commitment. The
effects of supervision ( r_=.42) were somewhat subsumed by the effects of colleagues as
the additional percentage of explained variance was only 5.4 per cent.
It is also interesting that pay was less correlated with organizational commitment
among Division I coaches. In fact, this variable did not enter the regression equation at
all. In contrast, satisfaction with pay was a significant contributor to organizational
commitment of Division HI and Japanese coaches. It is not clear why satisfaction with
pay would have differential effects on the organizational commitment of the three groups
of coaches.
The intrinsic factors of coaching job ( r >.5) and autonomy ( r >.29) had the
highest correlations with occupational commitment in all three groups. The stepwise
regression analyses showed that satisfaction with coaching job contributed the most to
occupational commitment (explained variance exceeding 27%). It is not surprising that those who were more satisfied with their coaching job were also more committed to that occupation. This result should not be viewed from a causal perspective because it could be argued that those who were committed to the occupation felt more satisfied with the coaching job.
In the case of Division HI coaches, only the facet of coaching job entered the regression equation implying that the effects of other variables (supervision, autonomy, team performance, amount of work, colleagues, and job security) were subsumed by the
105 coaching job. In contrast, the âcets of athletes’ academic progress and job security significantly although modestly contributed to the explained variance of occupational commitment of Division I coaches. These two Acets reflect the relatively greater emphasis placed on athlete graduation in Division I, and the extent of job insecurity in
Division I coaching ranks. It is interesting that the Acet of supervision also contributed to the explained variance in occupational commitment of Japanese coaches. It is not clear how satisfaction with supervision would be related to occupational commitment.
The subjects of the study were drawn fi'om Division I, Division m , and Japanese university athletics. While most of the Division I coaches were full-time paid coaches, the percentage of such coaches progressively declined among Division HI and Japanese coaches. Also, the coaches at these lower levels of competition (particularly Japanese coaches) also tended to be Acuity members. The reactions of full-time coaches paid exclusively for coaching to their coaching jobs could have been quite different from those part-time coaches who were paid for other functions as well. By the same token, the emphasis placed on athletics and coaching may differ from one institution to another in the same country which would elicit different reactions from the coaches. Therefore, it is necessary to collect data from coaches who had similar full-time or part-time jobs in similar institutions. Such an approach would control for the effects of employment status and institutional differences.
In conclusion, the Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire developed in the present study is found to be sound in so far its content validity has been confirmed by experts and
106 its factorial validity is demonstrated in three di£ferent samples o f subjects. Further, the reliability estimates are sufficiently high in all three data sets. Finally, the facets of satisfaction were meaningfully correlated with both organizational and occupational commitment. While these attributes of the scale are encouraging, future work may attempt to establish its test-retest reliability as well as test the validity of the scale. While the sub-group comparisons o f the present study have shown some clear differences between the American and Japanese coaches, it is not clear if such differences in expressed satisfaction reflect cultural effects or the objective conditions surrounding intercollegiate coaching in the two countries. Thus, future research may attempt to control for objective conditions in an attempt to tease out the relative effects of the two factors (cultural effects and objective conditions).
107 LIST OF REFERENCES
Adams, L. T. (1965). biequity ia social excha%e. bi L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology ('vol.2V ^ p . 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Akindutire, I. O. (1993). Determinants of satisfaction in career expectations of Nigerian coaches. International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 24. 18-29.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, IP . (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Inumal o f Vocational Behavior. 49.252-276.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, JP. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psvcholoev. 63. 1-18.
Anderman, E. M , Belzer, S., & Smith, J. (1991). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: The role of school culture and principal. Presented at the Aimual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Azumi, K., & McMillan, C. J. (1976). Worker sentiment in the Japanese fectory: Its organizational determinants. In L. Austin (Ed), Japan: The paradox of progress (pp. 215-229). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C , Kravitz, D.A., Lovell, S.E., Paul, BLB, Reilly, B.A., & Reilly, C E. (1990). Users' manual for the Job Descriptive Indmc fJDD and the Job in General fJIGl Scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Barnett, N. P., SmoU, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach- athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport PsvchologisL 6(2). 111-127.
Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy o f Management Journal 27 95-112.
108 Becker, T. E., Billings, R.S., Eveieth, DM., & Gilbert, NX. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: bnpiications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal 39T2Y 464-482.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology. 66.32-40.
Blau, G. J. (1994). Further evidence for the discriminant yalidity of four fecets of work commitment: occupational, yalue, organizational, and job. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 79(31. 1617-1618.
Blau, G.J. (1985a). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 58.277-288.
Blau, G.J. (1985b). A multiple study inyestigation of the dimensionality of job inyolyement. Journal of Vocational Behayior. 27. 19-36.
Blau, G.J., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job inyolyement and organizational commitment interactiyely to predict tumoyer. Journal o f Management: ISflY 115-127.
Blau, G.J, Paul, A , & St. John, N. (1993). On developing a general index o f work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 42. 298-314.
Blood, M. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 19. 717-727.
Brislin, R.W. (1990). Applied cross-cultural psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1 (3 \ 185-216.
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H.A. (1997). A classification of focets of athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sport Management 11(21. 133-159.
Chelladurai, P. (1985). Sport management- Macro perspectives. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.
Cohen, A (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management JoumaL 36(5). 1140-1157.
Cole, R.E. (1979). Work. Mobility, and Participation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
109 Courneya, K.S., & Chelladurai, P. (1991). A model o f perfonnance measures in baseball. Journal of Sport Psychology. 13. 16-25.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L it (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Nfinneapolis. MN: Uhiyersity of Minnesota Press.
de Boer, C (1978). The polls: Attitudes toward work. Public Opinion Quaiteriy. 42, 414-423.
Den Boer, T. J. (1993). ffigh school coaches o f women's basketball teams- gander differences in the coaching profession. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uniyersity of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
Dunham, R. B., Smith, F. J., & Blackburn, R. S. (1977). Validity if the index of organizational reactions with the JDI, the MSQ, and Faces Scales. Academy of Management Journal 2 0 n ’> 420-432.
Etzioni, A (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organiyjrtinns (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Evans, V., Johnson, D , & Rams^, J. P. (1983). Differences in job satisfaction of athletic coaches in revenue and non-revenue sports. Presented at the American Alliance for Health. Physical Education. Recreation and Dance Conference.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance Palo Alto, C A Stanford University Press.
Fraenkel, J. R_, & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Fuoss, D. E., & Troppmann, R. J (1981). Effective coaching: A psychological approach. New York, NY: John WUey & Sons, Inc.
Glisson, C , Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 61-81.
Graham, E. E., West, R., & Schaller, K. A (1992). The association between the relational teaching approach and teacher job satis&ction. Communication Reports. 5(1).
11- 22.
Hambleton, S. L. (1989). Job satisfaction among female intercollegiate athletic head coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Florida, Gainesville, FL.
no Hendon, C. F. (1983). Job satisfaction of softball coaches at California two-vear colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Or%on, Ugene.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate people? Harvard Business Review. Januarv.Fehmarv 53-62.
Herzberg F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to woric. New York: Wiley.
Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services o f Pittsburgh.
Hofeted, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Beverly IBlls, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunt, ST)., & Morgan, R.M. (1994). Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key mediating constmct? Academv n f Management Journal 37 1568- 1587.
Japan Amateur Sports Association. (1980). Current situation o f intercollegiate athletic clubs. Tokyo: Japan Amateur Sport Association.
Japanese Olympic Committee. (1996). Report of Atlanta Olympic Games.
Japanese Olympic Committee. (1992). Report of Barcelona Olympic games.
Japanese Olympic Committee. (1988). Report of Seoul Olympic Games.
Japanese Olympic Committee. (1984). Report of Los Angels Olympic Games.
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, JM ., & Sincich, T.(1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academv of Management Journal 36f5) 951-995.
Johnson, S.M., Smith, P.C., & Tucker, S.M. (1982). Response format of the Job Descriptive Index: Assessment of reliability and validity by the multi-trait, multi-method matrix. Journal o f Applied Psvcholoev. 67. 500-505.
Kanter, R. (1968). A study of commitment mechanism in utopian societies. American Sociological Review. 33.499-517.
Kanungro, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Jnumal of Applied Psvchologv. 67. 341-349.
I l l Kendall, T J. (1977). Job satisfaction of physical education teachers in the Edmonton school systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Lachman, R., & Aranya, N. (1986). Evaluation of alternative models of commitments and job attitudes of professionals. Journal of Occupational Behavior 7 227-243.
Lawler, E £ . III. (1973). Motivation in work orpaniyatinns Pacific Grove, CA: Brools/Cole.
Lester, PÆ. (1987). Development and fector analysis o f the teacher job satisfaction questionnaire (TJSQ). Educational and Psvchological Measurement 47. 223- 233. Li, M (1993). Job satisfaction and performance of coaches of the spare-time sports schools in China. Journal of Sport Management 7 . 132-140.
Lincoln, J_R_ (1989). Employee work attitudes and management practice in the U.S. and Japan: Evidence from a large comparative survey. Califijmia Management Review. Fall 89-106.
Lincoln, J.R., & McBride, K. (1987). Japanese industrial organization in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology. 13.289-312.
Lincoln, J R. & Kalleberg, AX. (1985). Work organization and workfisrce commitment: A study of plants and employees in the U.S. and JapaiL American Sociological Review. 50. 738-760.
Lincoln, J R., Harada, M., & Olson, J. (1981). Cultural orientations and individual reactions to organizations: A study of employees of J^anese-owned firms. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 26. 93-115.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfection. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed ), Handbook oflndustdal and Organizational Psvchologv ^ p . 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Orpaniratinnal Behavior and Human Performance. 4. 309-336.
Maloney, T. L. (1974). Job satisfaction among physical educators at English- speaking Canadian univer.«tities Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
112 Maslow, A-H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. SO. 370-396.
Martin, CX., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgement in explaining the relationship between job satisÊiction and organizational commitment. Journal of Group & Qrpaniyational Management 21(11. 84-104.
Mayer, R_, & Schoolman, F. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management JoumaL 35. 671-684.
Meyer, J f ., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C A. (1993). Commitment to organization and occupations: Extension and tests of a three -component conceptualization- Journal n f Applied Psvchologv. 78(41. 538-551.
Miller, L., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension. 21(5145-50.
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1994). Teaching procedures of physical education and sports. Tokyo: Gyousei.
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1992). Japanese government policies in education, science and culture 1992. Tokyo: NCnistry of Education, Science and Culture.
Morrow, P C (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Nfenagement Review, 8(3), 486-500.
Morrow, P C , & Wirth, RJE. (1989). Work Commitment among salaried professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 34.40-56.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1982). Emplovee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R.T., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational behavior. 14. 224-247.
Oga, J., & Kimura, K. (1993). Recent trends in the sports industry in Japan. Journal of Sport Management 7. 249-255.
Ogasawara, E. (1995, June). Intercollegiate sports in Japan. Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, Athens, GA.
113 Ono, K. (1993). Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction [Syokumu manzokukan to seikatsu manzokukan]. Tolqro, Japan: Hakuto Shobo.
O’Reilly, C.A. m , Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture; A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Aqidgmy of Management Journal 34 487-4^.
O’Reilly, C.A. m , & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects o f compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal o f Applied Psvchologv. 71.492-499.
Parks, J. B., Russell, R. L., Wood, P. H., Roberton, M. A., & Shewookis, P. A. (1995). The paradox of the contented working women in intercoU^ate athletics administration. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 66f 0 .73-79.
Pastore, D. L. (1993). Job satisfaction and female college coaches. Phvsical Educator. 50(11.216-221.
Price, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academv oFManagement Journal 24 543-565.
Quinn, R.P., & Mandilovitch, M,S.BD. (1980). Education and job satisfaction, 1962-1967. Vocational Guidance Ouarterlv. 2 9 .100-111.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academv of Mangement Review. 10. 465-476.
Riemer, H. (1995). Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Ritter, J. E. Jr. (1974). Factors which affect job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of male and female interscholastic head coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Ruhl-Smith, C., & Smith, J. M. (1993). Teacher job satisfaction in rural schools: A view from the Texas Panhandle. Presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.
Saal, F. E. & Knight, P. A. (1995). Industrial / nrganizaticmal Psvchologv (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Savege, R.M. (1967). A study of teacher satisfaction and attitudes: Causes and effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
114 Sergiovanni, T. (1967). Factors which affect satisâction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Journal nf Educational Administration. 5. 66-82.
Shin, H S., & R ^es, P. (1991). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: Which comes first? Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Smith, F. J. (1976). Index of organizational reactions (lOR). The JSAS Calatog for Selected Documents in Psychology. 6J11 54.
Smith, P C , Balzer, W., Brannick, M T., Chia. W., Engleston, S., Gibson, W., Johnson, B., Josephson, H., Paul, K., Reilly, C , & Whalen, M (1989). Tlie revised JDI: A face liA for an old fiiend. The fadustrial-QrpaniMtinn PsvchologisL 24.31-33
Smith, P C , Kendall, L.M., & lAilin, C i. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in working and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally 6 Company.
Snyder, C.J. (1985). The effects of organiyatinnal climate and leader behavior on coaches’ job satisfaction in selected departments of intercollegiate athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University o f Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Spector, P.E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Develeopment of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal o f Community Psvchologv. 13f61. 693-713.
Srivastva, S., Salipante, P_F., Cummings, T.G., Notz, W.W., Bigelow, JJD., & Waters, J.A. (1977). Job satisfaction and productivitv. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
United States Olympic Committee. (1996). 1996 Olympic Games: Medal count.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scaipello, V. (1994). A longituttinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitments to the occupational and the organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 15.535-547.
Vandenberg, R. V., Self R.M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management. 20flV 123-140.
Vadenberg, R.V., & Lance, C.E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management 18 153-167.
115 Vertislqr, L, Tse, D JL, Wehrung, D.A., & Lee, K. (1990). Organizational design and management norms: A comparative study of manners' perceptions in the People’s Republic o f China, Hong Kong, and Canada. Journal o f Kfanag<»in«nt 853-867.
Wakabayashi, M , & Kido, Y. (1986). Job satis&ction and organizational commitment of Japanese Employees. The Personnel Research. 39(91. 8-21.
Wallace, JB. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Ouarteriv. 40T2L 228-255.
Wallace, J.E. (1993). Professional and organizational commitment: Compatible or incompatible? Journal of Vocational Behavior 42 333-349.
Weiss, D J , Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofqmst, LTL (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. Minneapolis, MM: Vocational Psychology Research, University of Minnesota
Williams, L., & Hazer, J. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psvcholoev. 71. 219-231.
116 Appendix A
Copy of the Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire Œoplishl
117 Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
Z ^ A c
A Doctoral Research Study Conducted hy Etsuko Ogasawara at The Ohio State University Advisor: P. Chelladurai, Ph.D
118 OHIO
UNIVERSTTY February 14, 1997
Dear Coach: We request you to kindly participate in this study relating to coaches' reactions to their jobs. Although coaches like you are largely responsible for developing excellence in sports, there has been no systematic efforts to study the career dynamics of coaching, and identifying various aspects of coaching. The present study is an attempt to fill this void by investigating the attitudes of coaches toward their jobs, their occupations, and their colleges/universities. An understanding of the extent of satisfactions with various facets of the coaching job would facilitate clear policies and practices to enhance the experiences of coaches. The purpose of this questionnaire is to give you a chance to tell how you feel about your present coaching job, what things you are satisfied with and what things you are not satisfied with. In addition, some of the questions will allow you to express how much you ate committed to coaching, and to your college/ university. On the basis of your answers and those of people like you, we hope to get a better understanding of the things people like and dislike about their coaching jobs, and their attachment to both coaching and the organization. The findings from this research may provide some insights on improving the quality of the coaching job in general. Please be assured that your responses will be kept confidential. The results of the study will not be linked to any individual or institution, and any discussion will be based on group data. If you have any questions, please contact either of us. In order to be included in this study, we would appreciate if you return the questionnaire by March 17. 1997. We are grateful for your participation in this study.
Sincerely,
Etsuko Ogasawara Professor P. Chelladurai, Ph.D. Doctoral Student The Ohio State University 5456 Kenneylane Boulevard 453 Larkins Hall, West I7ih Ave. Columbus. Ohio 43235-3247 Columbus. Ohio 43210-1284
Phone or FAX: (614)792-1327 Phone: (614)292-0816 email: ogasawara. I @osu.edu FAX: (614)688-3432
119 Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
Part I: Background Information
Please respond to the following questions fay c irc lin g the appropriate responses or fay w riting in the space provided:
Age: ______Gender Mate Female
What is the highest degree you have? Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Other
Major in Highest Degree: ______
Do you have any certifications as a coach? Yes No
If yes. Please specify: ______
What is the highest level of competition that you have coached?
1. International
2. National
3. Regional
4. Local
Total number of years of coaching: ______
Number of years of coaching in the present institution: ______
Please proceed to the next page...
120 (Part I cont’d)
At what type of college/university do you coach? Public fStatel Private
Are you a faculty member? Ha
If yes, what is your title? ______
If not, are you paid for coaching? Hs
Sports you coach: Primary: Men’s Women’s Both
Secondary: ______Men’s Women’s Both
How many days per week do you coach:______
On the average, how many hours per week do you spend on coaching related activities? __
On the average, how many athletes do you coach during the season? ______
Part II: Job Satisfaction in Coaching On the following pages you will find statements describing different aspects of your present coaching job. Please indicate the extent to which you are satisfied or dissatisfied with each of the aspects by c irc lin g the appropriate number on the right hand side of each statement There are no right or wrong answers and the statements are not meant to trick you. Each person responds in his/her own way. Try not to spend too much time on any one question; go with your first response. Please respond to each statement
Very Very How satisfied are you with: Dissatisfied Satisfied
1. The chances of getting ahead in this coaching job 123456789 2. The chance to supervise other people 1 23456789
121 Very Very How satisfied are you with: Dissatisfied Satisfied
3. The way college/university policies are put into 123456789 practice
4. How my pay compares with that of similar jobs in 23456789 other colleges/universities 5. The level of cooperation among coaches in my 23456789 college/university 6- The chance to do new and original things on the Job 23456789 7. The extent of control I have over my Job 23456789 8. The chance to work alone on the Job 23456789 9. Being able to do things that do not go against my 23456789 conscience
0. The credit I get for the work I do 2 3 456 7 8 9 1. My job security 2 3 456 7 8 9 2. The chance to help people 2 3 456 7 8 9 3. The social position in the community that goes with 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 coaching
4. The way my supervisor handles his/her employees 23456789 5. The competence of my supervisor in making 23456789 decisions
6. The variety of tasks in my work 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 7. The physical surroundings where I work 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 8. The freedom to use my own Judgement in coaching 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 9. The chance to do the kind of work that I do best 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 20. Being able to see the results of the work I do n 3 456 7 8 9
Please proceed to the next page...
122 Very Very How satisfied are you with; Dissatisfied Satisfied
21. Being active much of the time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22. The improvement in my team’s performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23. The extent to which members of my team are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ethical 24. How my team works to be the best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 25. The degree to which I do my best for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 26. The quality of the facilities for my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 27. The funding provided to my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 28. The media’s coverage of my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 29. The support my team gets firom the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 college/university community 30. The academic progress of my athletes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31. The goals of the athletic department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 32. The enjoyment I get out of coaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 33. The amount of work I have to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 34. The communication I get firom the administration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 35. The opportunity for advancement in this coaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 job 36. The opportunity to direct others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 37. The way the college/university treats its employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 38. My pay compared to the amount of work I do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 39. The way coaches in my colleg/university get along 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 with eachother 40. The support I get from the administration for fund 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 raising
123 Very Vety How satisfied are you with: Dissatisfied Satisfied
41. The chance to try my own methods in coaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 42. The chance to work independently of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 43. The chance to do things that do not harm other people I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 44. The praise I receive for doing a good job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45. The way coaching provides for steady employment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 46. The chance to do things for other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 47. The chance to be “somebody” in the community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 48. The personal relationship between my supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and his/her employees 49. The way my supervisor delegates work to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50. The chance to do different things in my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 51. The working conditions for coaching at my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 college/university 52. The responsibility I have over my own work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 53. The chance to do something that makes use of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 abilities 54. The feeling of accomplishment I get from coaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 55. Being able to keep busy all the time I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 56. My team’s performance in I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 championships/tournaments 57. The “sportspersonlike” behavior of my team L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 members 58. The integration within my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 59. My dedication to the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60. The quality of equipment and uniforms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Please proceed to the next page...
124 Very Very How satisfied are you with: Dissatisfied Satisfied
61. The fairness of my team’s budget 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 62. The feedback I get from my superiors 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 63. The media’s support for my team 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 64. The local community’s support for my team 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 65. How well my athletes do in their studies 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 66. The rules and procedures of the college/university 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 67. The pride I get from coaching 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 68. The amount of paperwork I have to do 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 69. The support I get to arrange travel and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 accomodation 70. The fnendship with other coaches 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 71. My team’s performance during regular season 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 72. The degree to which my team members share the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 same goal 73. The adequacy of facilities for my team 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74. The emphasis placed on winning 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 75. The meaningfulness of the job I do 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 76. The amount of teaching I have to do in addition to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 coaching 77. The help I receive from the administration to recruit 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 athletes 78. The scheduling of facilities for my team 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 79. The significance of the job I do 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 80. The administrative duties I have to perform 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 81. The way my job duties are explained to me 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
125 Part HE: Work Commitment The following statements are related to a person's attitudes toward work in general, the coaching Job. and toward his/her college/universi^. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the statements by c irc lin g the appropriate coice on the right hand side. Your spontaneous and honest response to each item is critical to the study. ////;/ I. In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be 1 2 3 4 5 6 work-oriented. 2. If I could go into a diRerent occupation which would pay the I 2 3 4 5 6 same as coaching I probably would do so. 3. The most important things that happen in life involve work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Hard work makes an individual a better person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. 1 do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my college/university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. 1 can see myself in coaching for many years. I 2 3 4 5 6 7. Work should only be a small part of one’s life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. I like coaching too well to give it up. I 2 3 4 5 6 9. Wasting time is as bad as wasting money. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this college/university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 II. My career choice of coaching is a good occupational decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 for me. 12. I live. eat. and breathe my job. I 2 3 4 5 6 13. My education and training are not tailored for the coaching I 2 3 4 5 6 career. 14. A good indication of a person’s worth is how well he/she does 1 2 3 4 5 6 his/her job.
Please proceed to the next page...
126 I I JS s
/ / / 1 1 / 15. This collcge/university has a great deal of personal meaning for I 2 3 4 5 6 me.
16. I like to be absorbed in my Job most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. If I could do it all over again, I would not choose to work as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 coach. 18. Most of my interests are centered around my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Coaching is the ideal vocation for a life’s work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. If all other things are equal, it is better to have a job with a lot of 1 2 3 4 5 6 responsibility than one with little responsibility. 21. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this college/university. I 2 3 4 5 6 22. If I had all the money I needed without working, I would I 2 3 4 5 6 probably still continue to work as a coach. 23. Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Sometimes I wish I had chosen a different career field than 1 2 3 4 5 6 coaching.
25. Work is something people should get involved in most of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 time.
26. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my working days with I 2 3 4 5 6 this college/university. 27. I am sometimes dissatisfied with my choice of coaching as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 career. 28. I consider my job to be very central to my existence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. I am disappointed that I ever entered coaching as an occupation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Work should be considered central to life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. I really feel as if the problems of this college/university are my own. 1 2 3 4 5 6
127 Part IV: Additional Background Information Please respond to the following questions by eircting-üic appropriate responses.
Have you ever participated in athletic competition as an athlete'* Igs Hb
If yes. what it the highest level of competition in which you have competed?
1. International
2. Mational
3. Regional
4. Llniversitv
5. High School
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete the questionnaire! Please seal it in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope and return it by March 17, 1997 to:
Etsuko Ogasawara 5456 Kenneylane Blvd. Columbus, Ohio 43235-3247 Phone & FAX 614-792-1327 email: osasawara. [email protected]
1 2 8 Appendix B
Copy of the Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire Japanese')
129 Coach Satisfaction Questionnaire
% * # # - P. : Chelladurai, Ph. D
A Oocural iUjcarch Study Conducted by Ecsuko Ognsawura a t The Ohio State University A csisorr P. Chelladurai. Ph.0
130 February M. 1997
t;05$3jîîl,'Cl' ôam24;SgS'3[t«ZtiSbkJm-ë-X/U èiJ^SfrS'^c.'rîrtïh.yT , 4;U |5Tzi'C:a@Ki<&^^ ^'^-rs^tcDife)^ 5/T(DC05^^C%73e'L'A'6 L ± lf S.L < 'fi: %A & Professor P. Chelladurai. Ph.D. Eüuku Ogxsawara Dccioral Sludoni The Ohio State University 5-156 K enneylane Boulevard 453 Larkins Hail. West 17th .Ave. Columbus. Ohio 43255-3247 Columbus. Ohio 43210-1284 Ü.S.A. Ü.S.A. Phone or F.AX: 1-6 14-792-1327 Phone: 1-614-292-0816 email: oaasawara.I ©osu.edu FAX: 1-614-688-3432 131 PARTI: 4, m t£SiJ: ^ jctÉ 3# ^ : ^ fig±S^ itdbS^ ^(Pffe______ a ^ # m - c ( D # %______^ ^ ______#% & % (7 )3 — 7 : (A' L'L'^ &Wcf^:^v#(D#[gT?TA'? ^U %L\j 75r^(^ TKvi^aXi? ^ œ %# I^ITOn ^L ru\L\;%j TSr^fs. 3 i^