QWL

Draft Report
Findings from the

2003 Quality of Work Life Survey
of George Mason University Employees
IV. MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

BY JOB CATEGORY
The sources of satisfaction for employees in specific job categories are identified below.
They are listed in descending order. We have identified those items for which 75% or
more of the respondents reported satisfaction. Responses to the 2000 QWL are also
included for comparison purposes. (Items not included on the 2000 survey are
highlighted).
Adjunct Faculty
2000
Sense that your work
is meaningful
Relationship with
supervisor
Opportunity to work
independently
Relationship with
coworkers
Access to sporting
events
Flexibility of work
hours
Fair and equitable
performance
evaluation
Contract Faculty
2003
2000
Opportunity to work
independently
Opportunity to work
from home
Opportunity to use a
variety of skills
Relationship with
supervisor
Sense that work is
meaningful
Opportunity to
develop new ideas
Relationship with
coworkers
Competency of
Opportunity to work
independently
Flexibility of work
hours
Opportunity to work
from home
Retirement benefits
Sense that work is
meaningful
Relationship with
supervisor
Access to sporting
events
Health care benefits
Competency of
2003
Opportunity to work
independently
Access to cultural
events
Opportunity to
develop new ideas
Access to sporting
events
Relationship with
coworkers
Fair and equitable
performance
evaluation
variety of skills
Opportunity to work
from home
Access to cultural
events
Competency of
coworkers
coworkers
Treated with dignity
and respect
Opportunity for
professional growth
Administrative Faculty
2000
Opportunity to work
independently
Access to cultural
events
Retirement benefits
Relationship with
coworkers
Access to sporting
events
Relationship with
supervisor
Sense that work is

meaningful
Balance between work
and family/personal
life
Treated with dignity
and respect
Flexibility of work
hours
Opportunity to work
from home
Competency of
coworkers
Control over work life
Working conditions
Overall job
satisfaction
Opportunity to
develop new skills
coworkers
Tenure-line Faculty
2003
Opportunity to work
independently
Access to sporting
events
variety of skills
Access to cultural
events
Relationship with
supervisor
Sense that work is
meaningful
Opportunity to
develop new skills
Flexibility of work
hours
Relationship with
coworkers
2000
2003
Opportunity to work
independently
Job security
Flexibility of work
hours
Opportunity to work
from home
Access to sporting
events
Sense that work is
meaningful
Access to cultural
events
Relationship with coworkers
Opportunity to work
independently
variety of skills
Flexibility of work
hours
Opportunity to
develop new ideas
Job security
Opportunity to work
independently
Opportunity for
professional growth*
Competency of
coworkers
Access to cultural
events
Sense that work is
meaningful
Relationship with
supervisor
Classified Staff
Wage Employees
2000
2003
2000
2003
Opportunity to work
independently
Relationship with
supervisor
Access to cultural
events
Access to sporting
events
Access to cultural
events
Opportunity to work
independently
variety of skills
Opportunity for
scholarly pursuits
Relationship with
supervisor
Flexible work hours
Balance between work
and family/personal
life
Opportunity to work
independently
Flexibility of work
hours
Relationship with
supervisor
Sense that work is
meaningful
Working conditions
Job security
Access to cultural
events
Flexible work hours

Working conditions
Opportunity to work
independently
Job security
Work space
Dial-up access from
home to GMU
Overall job
satisfaction
MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION

BY JOB CATEGORY
The sources of dissatisfaction for employees in specific job categories are identified
below. They are listed in descending order. We have identified those items for which
50% or more of the respondents reported dissatisfaction. Responses to the 2000 QWL
are also included for comparison purposes. (Items not included on the 2000 survey are
highlighted).
Adjunct Faculty
2000
Job security
Retirement benefits
Work space
Salary
Work load
Availability of oncampus child care
Contract Faculty
2003
2000
2003
Salary
Retirement benefits
Job security
Work space
Special recognition for
achievements
Equitable distribution
of resources
Adequate input in
decision process
Fair and equitable
performance appraisal
Job security
achievements
Salary
Work load
Opportunity for
scholarly pursuits
Salary
Job security
of resources
Tenure-line Faculty
2000
2003
2000
2003

Internet access at
home through GMU
Opportunity to work
from home
Work load
achievements
Salary

Salary
Work load
Opportunity to work
from home
achievements
Work load
Internet access at
home through GMU
Salary
achievements

of resources
Salary
Information provided
concerning decisions
affecting you
Work load
achievements
Classified Staff
Wage Employees
2000
2003
2000
2003
Salary
Opportunity to work
from home
achievements
Internet access at
home through GMU
Salary
Adequate input in
decision process
affecting you
Opportunity to work
from home

Retirement benefits
Salary
Work space
Work load
Special recognition of
achievements
Opportunity for
scholarly pursuits
Opportunity to
develop new skills
Salary
Retirement benefits
Adequate input in
decision process
affecting you*
Opportunity to
develop new skills
achievements
Opportunity for
professional growth
Access to sporting
events
V. MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE STRESS

BY JOB CATEGORY
The sources of stress for employees in specific job categories are identified below. They
are listed in descending order. We have identified those items for which 50% or more of
the respondents reported stress. Responses to the 2000 QWL are also included for
comparison purposes. (Items not included on the 2000 survey are highlighted).
Adjunct Faculty
Contract Faculty
2000
2003
2000
Managing household
responsibilities
Managing household
responsibilities
Work load
Managing household
responsibilities
Illness or death in
family
Departmental budget
concerns
Review/promotion
process
Availability of parking
2003
University budge
concerns
Managing household
responsibilities
Illness or death in
family
Care of an elderly
parent
Promotion
opportunities
Tenure-line Faculty
2000
2003
2000
Work load
Institutional
procedures
Managing household
responsibilities
Departmental budget
concerns
Unproductive
committee work
University budget
concerns
Illness or death of a
family member
Managing household
responsibilities
Work load
Unproductive
committee work
Review/promotion
process
Institutional
procedures
Managing household
responsibilities
2003
University budget
concerns
Managing household
responsibilities
Committee work
Institutional
procedures
Classified Staff
2000
Institutional
procedures
Work load
Wage Employees
2003
2000
University budget
concerns
Managing household
responsibilities
Managing household
responsibilities
Personal finances
2003
Personal finances
family member
Childrens problems
My physical health
Affordable housing
Managing household
responsibilities
Availability of child
care
Cost of child care
MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE NON-STRESS

BY JOB CATEGORY
The sources of non-stress for employees in specific job categories are identified below.
They are listed in descending order. We have identified those items for which 75% or
more of the respondents reported no or minimal stress. Responses to the 2000 QWL are
also included for comparison purposes. (Items not included on the 2000 survey are
highlighted).
Adjunct Faculty
Contract Faculty
2000
2003
2000
2003
Subtle discrimination
Relationship with
supervisor
Frequency of staff
meetings
Unproductive
committee work
Difficulties with other
work units
Difficulties with
colleagues
Cost of child care
Affordable housing
Care of an elderly
parent
Review/promotion
process
Marital friction
Childrens problems
care
Relationship with
supervisor
Difficult relations with
colleagues
Committee work
Frequency of staff
meetings
Personal
safety/security on
campus
Management /
Supervisory
responsibilities
work units
Fairness in hiring
process
Fairness in the
/ promotion review
Performance
appraisal / promotion
review
Dealing with change
within my
organization
Dealing with change
within my unit
care
Cost of child care
Care of an elderly
parent
Frequency of staff
meetings
Marital friction
Childrens problems
Difficulties with
colleagues
Relationship with
supervisor
work units
Frequency of staff
meetings
Personal
safety/security on
campus
Marital friction
Institutional
procedures
Difficulties with
colleagues
work units
Keeping up with
technology
Commuting
Relationship with
supervisor
Dealing with change
within my
organization
Committee work
Dealing with change
within my unit
Rude or inconsiderate
students
Cost of child care
10
Keeping up with
technology
Tenure-line Faculty
2000
2003
2000
2003
students
Marital friction
Care of an elderly
parent
Cost of child care
Personal safety /
security on campus
Fairness in hiring
process
Marital friction
Physical condition of
classroom /work area
Keeping up with
technology
students
Relationship with
supervisor
Cost of parking
Committee work
colleagues
Fairness in the
/ promotion review
Performance
review
Dealing with change
within my
organization
Cost of child care

Affordable housing
Cost of parking
Marital friction
care
Relationship with
supervisor
Personal safety /
security on campus
care
Cost of parking
Cost of child care
Affordable housing
Keeping up with
technology
Relationship with
supervisor
work units
colleagues
Marital friction
11
Classified Staff
Wage Employees
2000
2003
2000
2003
Frequency of staff
meetings
Relationship with
supervisor
Marital friction
care
Keeping up with
technology
Commuting
Difficulties with
colleagues
Personal safety /
security on campus
care
Committee work
Keeping up with
technology
Marital friction
Frequency of staff
meetings
students
Relationship with
supervisor
Cost of child care
Fairness in hiring
process
Frequency of staff
meetings
work units
care
Cost of child care
Keeping up with
technology
Relationship with
supervisor
Review/promotion
process
Difficulties with
colleagues
Commuting
Marital friction
classroom / work area
Personal safety /
security on campus
Personal safety /
security on campus
students
Committee work
Fairness in hiring
process
Dealing with change
within my
organization
Commuting
Frequency of staff
meetings
Relationship with
supervisor
colleagues
Fairness in the
performance
review
Keeping up with
technology
12
VI. OVERVIEW OF PURPOSE AND METHOD

In order to formally assess the quality of work life among George Mason University
employees, the Quality of Work Life Task Force conducted a formal survey. The results
of the survey are seen as essential to focusing the efforts of the task force and resources
of the University.
Two surveys were developed: a long form that was sent to a random sample of 760
employees, and a short form that was sent to the remainder of GMU employees. The
short form contained only two open-ended questions. The long forms were coded such
that reminder notices and a second copy of the survey were sent to those who had not
returned the survey within two weeks of the initial mailing. Both the long and short
surveys were distributed through campus mail in April. The remainder of this report will
focus on the long form.
A. Survey Instrument
The survey consisted of several categories of questions using either a 4 or 5 point Likert
scale format. The following measures were included:
Perceived Organizational Support
Affective Organizational Commitment
Work-Family Culture
Sources of Stress, divided into 6 dimensions that are likely to influence
POS:
o Fairness
o Work Conditions
o Role Stress
o Relations with Others
o Parking and Commuting
o Personal and Family
Sources of Satisfaction, also divided into 6 dimensions that are likely to
influence POS:
o Fairness
o Work Conditions
o Salary & Benefits
o Autonomy & Growth
o Access to Non-work Activities
o Overall Job & Life Satisfaction
In addition, the survey contained two open-ended questions inquiring about issues the
university has handled well and those areas in which the university could improve.
Short-form surveys, which included only these same two open-ended questions were
sent to all employees that did not receive the long form. There were also several
demographic questions.
13
B. Description of the Sample

Of the 760 long-form surveys distributed, a total of 26 were returned because of incorrect
address or because the individual no longer worked for the university. A total of 259
surveys were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 35%. This response
rate is low and may be due to the state budget situation constraining employees sense of
control over organizational interventions. Employees in six job categories responded to
the survey: adjunct faculty, administrative faculty, contract faculty, tenure-line faculty,
wages, and classified staff. Table 1 indicates the number of respondents in each category
and the demographic characteristics of these groups.
14
TABLE 1
Demographics of the Sample
Number
Responding
Mean Age
Percent with
children living
at home
Mean Years at
GMU
Percent Male
Modal level of
education
Percent
Caucasian
Percent
Married/Living
with Partner
Percent Fairfax
Campus
Percent
Arlington
Campus
Percent Prince
William
Campus
Percent Fulltime
Adjunct
Faculty
Administrative
Faculty
Contract
Faculty
Tenureline
Faculty
Wages
Classified
21
57
23
46
22
86
45.0
44.0
46.2
51.4
37.4
43.8
47.6%
44.6%
45.5%
35.6%
33.3%
41.9%
2.5
7.14
4.77
14.5
3.52
7.61
52.4%
42.1%
21.7%
58.7%
27.3%
28.2%
MA/PhD
MA
PhD
PhD
BA
BA
100%
82.1%
78.3%
95.5%
50%
78.6%
66.7%
75.4%
82.6%
78.3%
40.9%
72.9%
81.0
75.4
81.8
76.1
54.5
80.2
9.5
14.0
13.6
6.5
4.5
4.9
9.5
10.5
4.5
17.4
40.9
14.8
4.8%
98.2%
82.6%
100%
22.7%
100%
15
Response Rates by Job Classification and Campus

Surveys
Mailed
Campus
Arlington Campus
Fairfax Campus
Prince William Campus
Job Classification
Adjunct Faculty
Contract/Term Faculty
Tenure-line Faculty
Wages
Classified
Surveys Response
Returned
Rate
76
614
70
21
191
38
27.6%
31.1%
54.3%
103
94
45
222
113
183
21
57
23
46
22
86
20.4%
60.6%
51.1%
20.7%
19.5%
47.0%
16
VII. RESULTS
A. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT (POS)
1. Description of the measure.
Perceived Organizational Support is a standard 8-item measure designed to assess the
extent to which employees perceive that the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well-being. A sample item is: My organization cares about my
opinions. Respondents indicate their extent of agreement on a 5-point scale (1=strongly
disagree, 5=strongly agree) such that a high score indicates that the employee perceives a
high level of organizational support.
2. General findings.
Mean POS scores at both the University and Local Unit level for each of the 6 job
categories is presented in the following graph. As is indicated, POS is higher at the local
unit level than at the University level for each of the 6 categories. This is not surprising as
it is easier to be known and have your voice heard when working within your
immediate circle of colleagues than it is at the University level. It is somewhat
encouraging to note that each of the job categories feels some modest level of support
from their local unit.
Generally, POS at the University level is near the neutral point for most of the job
categories, with those earning hourly wages showing the least POS and administrative
faculty showing the most POS. Although there are no published norms for POS for
educational institutions, the GMU averages for this construct are within the range found
in other organizations.
There are significant differences between POS at the University level in 2000 (3.08) and
2003 (3.34). There are also significant differences between POS at the local work unit
level in 2000 (3.63) and 2003 (3.79). These differences indicate that employee
perceptions of organizational support (both from the organization and their individual
work groups) have increased significantly in the last three years.
17
Perceived Organizational Support

(POS) in 2000 vs. 2003
(5-point scale; 3=neutral; Higher score indicates more POS)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2000
2003
2
1.5
1
0.5
ed
ifi
ss
Cl
a
W
ag
e
-li
ne
Fa
c
Fa
c
ted
Te
nu
re
tri
c
ul
ty
ul
ty
ul
ty
Fa
c
Re
s
Ad
mi
n
Ad
ju
nc
t
Fa
c
ul
ty
Norms for comparison purposes:
64 group leaders in a manufacturing plant: POS=2.50
750 employees from a large corporation with at least 5 years tenure: POS=3.23
18
Perceived Local Work Unit Support

(PLWUS) in 2000 vs. 2003
(5-point scale; 3=neutral; Higher score indicates more POS)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2000
2003
2
1.5
1
0.5
19
ed
ifi
ss
Cl
a
W
ag
e
ul
ty
ne
F
-l i
Fa
c
ted
Te
nu
re
tri
c
ac
ul
ty
ul
ty
Fa
c
Re
s
Ad
mi
n
Ad
j
un
ct
Fa
c
ul
ty
Perceived Organizational Support at the

Organizational Level (POS) and the
Local Work Unit Level (PLWUS)
(5-point scale; 3 = neutral; Higher score indicates more POS)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
POS
2.5
PLWUS
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Arlington
Fairfax
Prince William
20
B. AFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT (AOC)

Affective Organizational Commitment is a standard 7-item measure designed to assess
the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular
organization. Typically, the construct is characterized by a strong belief in and
acceptance of the organizations goals, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf
of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. A
sample item is: this organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me.
Respondents indicate their agreement on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly
agree) such that a high score indicates that the employee has a high level of commitment
to the organization.
The research literature indicates that AOC is positively related to perceived
organizational support, tenure in an organization, and degree of social involvement in the
organization. Affective Organizational Commitment is negatively related to absenteeism,
tardiness, and turnover.
Although the measure is typically used with the larger organization as the only focus, our
survey also asked respondents to indicate their AOC at the local work unit/department
level as well as at the university level.
Mean AOC scores at both the University and Local Unit level for each of the 6 job
categories are presented in the graph. The results are similar to the POS findings, but
AOC toward the University tends to be higher than POS. AOC is higher at the Local Unit
level for each all job categories except adjunct faculty, who felt nearly equal AOC toward
their Local Unit and the University. AOC scores at the University level have increased
for all job categories since the last Quality of Work Life Survey.
Generally AOC at the University level is just above the neutral point for all 6 job
categories. Normative AOC-University data is not available for faculty; however a recent
study conducted at a large Midwestern university of 116 new hires across a variety of
non-faculty job titles report an AOC mean of 3.21, an average similar to that found in the
George Mason sample.
There are significant differences in AOC at the University level in 2000 (3.08) and 2003
(3.31). The differences between AOC at the local work unit level in 2000 (3.36) and
2003 (3.47) are not statistically significant. This trend of significant and non-significant
results indicates that employee feelings of affective organizational commitment directed
toward the organization and their individual work groups have increased in the last three
years.
21
Norms for comparison purposes:
116 new non-faculty employees in an educational institution: AOC=3.21
132 former graduate students, now employed: AOC=3.02
337 full-time employees in three organizations: AOC=3.24
22
WORK-FAMILY CULTURE (WFC)

The Work-Family Culture scale is based on 5 items taken from a 21-item published scale
designed to measure the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to
which an organization supports and values the integration of employees work and family
lives. A sample item is: In general, managers in this organization are quite
accommodating of family-related needs. Respondents indicate their extent of agreement
on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) such that a high score indicates
a favorable work-family culture.
The research literature indicates that the full WFC scale is positively related to
employees use of work-family benefits and negatively related to work-family conflict
and intentions to leave the organization.
As was the case with both the POS and AOC measures, our survey asked respondents to
indicate the WFC at both the local work unit/department and university levels.
Nearly all job categories reported WFC to be moderately above the neutral point at both
the Local Unit and University levels. Once again, scores were higher at the Local Unit
level than at the University level. As our survey only used 5 items of a 21-item scale, it is
difficult to compare our results to the data in the literature. With this caution in mind, a
study of 276 managers and professionals (masters alumni from business programs)
across several organizations indicated item mean scores of approximately 3.2 on the
WFC scale. Although this is only a crude comparison, it appears that the WFC-University
level scores across groups (mean = 3.48) are slightly higher than scores obtained in the
literature.
WFC scores both at the Local Unit level and the University level are higher than those
measured in the previous Quality of Work Life Study.
23
D. SOURCES OF STRESS
A list of 32 potential sources of stress was developed and respondents indicated the extent
that each item was stressful on a 4-point scale (1=not a source of stress, 4=extremely
stressful). Mean scores for each item by job category are presented in the following
table, with the 3 most stressful items for each group indicated in bold numerals and the 3
least stressful items highlighted.
As indicated by the table, University budget concerns was among the most stressful
factors identified by employees. Indeed, 60.6% of all employees indicated moderate or
extreme stress caused by the budget situation. It was the largest source of stress for
Administrative, Tenure-line, and contract faculty, and classified employees. Managing
household responsibilities was especially stressful for Administrative and contract
faculty, as well as wage employees; this is consistent with the results of the 2000 QWL
survey. Personal finances were sources of stress for wage and classified employees, as
well as adjunct faculty.
On positive notes, one should note that personal safety/security on campus was
perceived by all employees to be of minimal or no stress. Additionally, while tenure-line
faculty identified committee work as a source of stress, all other job categories
indicated that it was of minimal or no stress. It is also encouraging to note that subtle
discrimination was a source of no or minimal stress across all job categories.
Commensurate with findings from the 2000 QWL survey, Relationship with supervisor
was not identified as a significant source of stress.
A graph is also presented that indicates the percentages of employees in the total sample
that perceived each of the items as stressful/not stressful. Similarly, there is a table that
breaks out these percentages for each of the 6 job categories.
Analysis of the stress item data indicated that most of the items can be categorized into 1
of 6 general stress factors:
1) Fairness
2) Role stress
3) Work conditions
4) Relations with others
5) Parking/Commuting
6) Personal/Family
Items associated with each of these stress factors are presented, followed by graphs of
average stress level for each of the factors for each of the job categories. There is also a
24
graph depicting average stress level for each individual item for each of the job
categories.
25
Mean Scores for Stress Items
Note: 1=Not a source of stress, 2=Minimal stress, 3=Moderate stress, 4=Extreme

stress
Highest 3 means within each job category are in BOLD [High Stress]
Lowest 3 means within each job category are HIGHLIGHTED [Low Stress]
Mean
Mean
Mean
Tenureline
Faculty
Mean
1.53
1.6
1.55
1.9
1.59
1.53
1.63
Performance appraisal
1.58
1.98
2.05
2.29
1.89
1.96
Fairness in
review/promotion
process
1.68
1.86
2.14
1.83
2.06
1.97
Promotion opportunities
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.17
2.21
2.32
2.24
Fairness in hiring
process
1.63
1.45
1.83
1.82
1.63
1.8
1.7
2.35
2.74
2.83
3.02
2.33
2.58
2.68
1.41
2.36
2.12
2.41
2.06
2.15
2.19
1.43
2.02
1.75
1.97
2.03
1.95
1.13
1.41
1.98
1.59
1.7
1.74
Institutional procedures
1.89
2.39
1.57
2.47
2.13
2.14
Committee work
1.07
1.86
1.72
2.48
1.54
1.52
1.8
1.95
1.59
1.61
2.05
1.82
1.66
1.75
1.44
1.91
1.87
2.2
2.11
2.07
1.44
1.94
2.18
1.94
2.08
Adjunct
Faculty
Admin Contract
Faculty Faculty
Wage
Classified
Mean
Mean
Group
Total
Fairness
Role Stress
University budget
concerns
Management/
supervisory
responsibilities
work units
Frequency of staff
meetings
Keeping up with
technology
Dealing with
organizational change
Dealing with work unit
change
26
Mean
Mean
Mean
Tenureline
Faculty
Mean
1.26
1.31
1.39
1.25
1.65
1.36
1.34
1.9
1.65
1.95
2.05
1.44
1.88
1.83
1.95
1.69
1.9
1.74
1.59
1.86
1.79
Cost of parking
2.33
1.8
1.74
2.27
2.24
2.04
Commuting
2.11
1.88
1.81
2.18
1.78
1.98
1.75
2.19
2.02
1.65
1.79
1.87
1.11
1.91
1.5
1.86
1.95
2.08
1.86
1.11
1.72
1.57
1.74
1.67
1.73
1.67
2.8
2.54
2.65
2.61
2.45
2.46
2.55
2.29
2.18
2.26
2.75
2.11
2.23
Marital friction
1.94
1.54
1.53
1.8
1.92
1.58
1.66
Personal finances
2.35
2.37
2.09
2.05
2.36
2.33
Affordable housing
1.96
1.78
1.63
2.44
1.99
1.93
family member
2.52
2.61
1.92
2.73
2.23
2.29
Availability of child care
1.53
1.92
1.44
2.17
1.43
1.64
Cost of child care
1.6
1.92
1.48
2.33
1.65
1.74
Children's problems
2.06
1.95
2.29
2.11
2.63
1.88
2.03
Care of an elderly parent
1.73
2.18
2.33
1.87
2.08
2.04
Adjunct
Faculty
Admin Contract
Faculty Faculty
Wage
Classified
Mean
Mean
Group
Total
Work Conditions
Personal safety/security
on campus
classroom/work area
Parking/Commuting
Relations With Others

students
colleagues
Relationship with
supervisor
Personal/Family
Managing household
responsibilities
Personal physical health
University budget concerns, managing household responsibilities, and personal

finances were the highest means across groups
27
Personal safety on campus, subtle discrimination, and keeping up with technology

were the lowest means across groups.
Since parking availability and/or cost may differ by campus, we investigated

differences across the three campuses. Fairfax campus had the highest number of
stressed employees. However, a majority of employees at all campuses reported
minimal or no stress associated with parking.
Arlington Campus
Fairfax Campus
Prince William Campus
Percent of
employees
reporting some
stress caused by
Parking
Availability
15.8
27.8
5.8
28
Percent of
employees
reporting some
stress caused by
Parking
Cost
25.0
31.5
25.8
Comparison of Responses on Stress Items for All Respondents

Fairness
Performance appraisal/promotion
review outcome
Fairness in the review/promotion
process
Fairness in the hiring process
Role Stress
University budget concerns
Management/supervisory
responsibilities
Difficulties with other work units
Frequency of staff meetings
Committee work
Keeping up with technology
Dealing with change in my unit
Dealing with change in my
organization
Work Conditions
Personal safety/security on
campus
classroom/work area
Relations with Others
Rude or inconsiderate students
Difficult relations with colleagues
Relationship with supervisor
Parking and Commuting
Cost of parking
Commuting
Key
82%
18%
70%
30%
70%
30%
59%
41%
79%
40%
21%
60%
63%
37%
72%
82%
65%
77%
83%
72%
28%
18%
35%
23%
17%
28%
73%
27%
94%
76%
24%
79%
77%
80%
21%
23%
20%
76%
70%
72%
Minimal/No Stress
29
6%
24%
30%
28%
Moderate/Extreme
Stress
Comparison of Responses on Stress Items for All Respondents, Continued

Personal / Family
Managing household
responsibilities
My physical health
Marital friction
Personal finances
Affordable housing
Illness or death of a family
member
Availability of childcare
Cost of child care
Childrens problems
Key
46%
54%
61%
39%
82%
55%
18%
45%
70%
55%
30%
45%
80%
75%
68%
66%
20%
25%
32%
34%
Minimal/No Stress
Moderate/Extreme
Stress
30
Stress Item
Reported Stress
Total %
Adjunct
Faculty %
Admin
Faculty %
Contract
Faculty %
Tenure-line
Faculty %
Wages %
Classified
%
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
83.2
16.8
70.9
29.1
70.6
29.4
79.0
21.0
59.4
40.6
89.5
10.5
89.5
10.5
89.5
10.5
89.5
10.5
63.0
37.0
84.4
15.6
76.8
23.2
77.2
22.8
85.7
14.3
60.8
39.2
80.0
20.0
63.2
36.8
63.2
36.8
66.7
33.3
50.0
50.0
80.4
19.6
54.8
45.2
65.1
34.9
74.4
25.6
60.0
40.0
82.4
17.6
73.7
26.3
77.8
22.2
84.2
15.8
63.2
36.8
83.3
16.7
72.0
28.0
64.6
35.4
75.8
24.2
58.2
41.8
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
39.4
60.6
63.0
37.0
72.6
27.4
81.7
18.3
65.3
34.7
76.7
23.3
82.4
17.6
73.3
26.7
60.0
40.0
94.1
5.9
92.9
7.1
100
72.2
27.8
100
75.0
25.0
88.9
11.1
36.8
63.2
50.9
49.1
68.5
31.5
73.1
26.9
57.4
42.6
78.4
1.6
83.0
13.0
75.9
24.1
26.1
73.9
70.6
29.4
85.0
15.0
95.5
4.5
87.0
13.0
77.8
22.2
82.6
17.4
78.3
21.7
26.1
73.9
51.2
48.8
76.3
23.7
72.7
27.3
46.7
53.3
45.5
54.5
77.3
22.7
64.4
35.6
61.9
38.1
68.8
31.2
70.6
29.4
82.4
17.6
68.8
31.2
84.6
15.4
76.5
23.5
84.2
15.8
41.5
58.5
68.1
39.1
67.5
32.5
84.8
15.2
72.5
27.5
89.2
10.8
85.0
15.0
69.1
30.9
Fairness
Performance appraisal /
promotion review
Fairness in the review /
promotion process
Fairness in hiring process
Role Stress
University budget
concerns
Management / Supervisory
responsibilities
work units
Frequency of staff
meetings
Committee work
Keeping up with
technology
Dealing with change
within my organization
39
Stress Item
Dealing with change
within my unit
72.5
27.5
Adjunct
Faculty %
88.9
11.1
Admin
Faculty %
72.5
27.5
Contract
Faculty %
77.3
22.7
Tenure-line
Faculty %
66.7
33.3
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
94.1
5.9
76.3
23.8
94.7
5.3
70.0
30.0
94.4
5.6
83.6
16.4
91.3
8.7
71.4
28.6
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
79.3
20.7
77.0
23.0
80.6
19.4
70.0
30.0
100
100
-
82.4
17.6
78.2
21.8
79.6
20.4
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
77.1
22.9
70.3
29.7
71.9
28.1
70.0
30.0
66.7
33.3
63.2
36.8
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
45.3
57.4
30.0
70.0
Reported Stress
Total %
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
88.2
11.8
Classified
%
67.5
32.5
97.7
2.3
68.2
31.8
88.2
11.8
94.4
5.6
93.8
6.2
74.4
25.6
76.2
23.8
86.4
13.6
78.3
21.7
74.4
25.6
76.2
23.8
76.7
23.3
88.2
11.8
78.9
21.1
81.0
19.0
81.3
20.7
68.4
31.6
79.5
20.5
80.8
19.2
78.4
21.6
74.5
25.5
71.4
28.6
66.7
33.3
81.0
19.0
78.6
21.4
85.7
14.3
63.6
36.4
76.5
23.5
60.0
40.0
83.3
16.7
77.2
22.8
61.0
39.0
72.0
28.0
48.1
51.9
39.1
60.9
40.9
59.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Wages %
Work Conditions
Personal safety / security
on campus
classroom / work area
students
colleagues
Relationship with
supervisor
Cost of parking
Commuting
Personal / Family
Managing household
responsibilities
40
Stress Item
My physical health
Marital friction
Personal finances
Affordable housing
Illness or death of a family
member
Availability of childcare
Cost of childcare
Childrens problems
Reported Stress
Total %
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
None/Minimal
Moderate/Extreme
61.2
38.8
81.4
18.6
54.8
45.2
70.3
39.7
55.0
45.0
79.2
20.8
75.4
24.6
68.5
31.5
66.7
33.3
Adjunct
Faculty %
65.0
35.0
72.2
27.8
55.0
45.0
70.0
30.0
64.7
35.3
80.0
20.0
80.0
20.0
61.1
38.9
80.0
20.0
41
Admin
Faculty %
60.0
40.0
85.4
14.6
55.6
44.4
74.0
26.0
42.9
57.1
60.0
40.0
64.0
36.0
73.0
27.0
65.8
34.2
Contract
Faculty %
63.6
36.4
89.5
10.5
60.9
39.1
73.9
26.1
44.4
55.6
66.7
33.3
75.0
25.0
52.9
47.1
46.7
53.3
Tenure-line
Faculty %
58.1
41.9
75.6
24.4
59.5
40.5
77.5
22.5
68.4
31.6
88.0
12.0
84.0
16.0
64.3
35.7
71.7
28.3
Wages %
45.0
55.0
66.7
33.3
26.3
73.7
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
37.5
62.5
63.6
36.4
Classified
%
65.9
34.1
84.8
15.2
56.8
43.2
67.9
32.1
60.7
39.3
92.9
7.1
79.1
20.9
78.9
21.1
66.0
34.0
SOURCE OF STRESS CATEGORIES

Fairness
Performance appraisal
Review and promotion process
Hiring process
Role Stress
University budget concerns
Management/supervisory responsibilities
Difficulties with other work units
Frequency of staff meetings
Committee work
Keeping up with technology
Dealing with change in the organization
Dealing with change in my unit
Work Conditions
Personal safety and security on campus
Physical condition of classroom or work area
Rude or inconsiderate students
Cost of parking
Commuting
Personal / Family
Managing household responsibilities
Personal physical health
Marital friction
Personal finances
Affordable housing
Illness or death of a family member
Availability of child care
Cost of child care
Childrens problems
42
Perceived Stress Across Job Categories

1=Not a source of stress, 2=Minimal stress, 3=Moderate stress, 4=Extreme stress
4
3.5
3
Fairness
Work Conditions
2.5
Role Stress
Relations With Others
1.5
Parking & Commuting

Personal & Family
1
0.5
Cl
as
sif
ie
d
W
ag
e
Ad
jun
ct
Fa
cu
Ad
lty
m
i
n
Re
Fa
st
cu
ric
lty
te
d
Te
Fa
nu
cu
re
lty
-li
ne
Fa
cu
lty
43
Differences in Perceived Stress Within Job Category

Job
Catego
ry
Adjunct
Faculty
Administrative
Faculty
Restricted
Faculty
Tenure-line
Faculty
Wage
Most
Stress
(1st var)
(2nd var)
Personal
Parking
(2.16)
(2.09)
Personal
Least
Stress
Role
Stress0
(2.23)
Parking0
(1.80)
Personal
(2.09)
Fairness0
(2.15)
(1.95)
Work
Conditions0
(1.86)
Role Stress
Personal0
Fairness0
(2.33)
Personal
(2.06)
Role
Stress1
(2.03)
Parking1
(2.47)
Classified
Work
Conditions0
(1.79)
(1.89)
Personal
(1.92)
Parking0
(2.09)
(2.05)
Role
Stress1
(1.59)
(1.61)
Relations
w/ Others0
(1.80)
Role
Stress1
Fairness1
(1.78)
Parking1
(1.86)
(1.86)
Parking1
(1.91)
Relations
w/ Others1
(1.81)
Fairness1
Role
Stress0
Fairness12
(1.90)
Relations
w/ Others1
(1.90)
Fairness1
Work
Conditions1
(1.78)
Relations
w/ Others1
(1.76)
(1.80)
Work
Conditions1
(1.87)
Work
Conditions1
(1.75)
Relations
w/ Others1
(1.87)
Work
Conditions1
(1.84)
(2.00)
Note:
0
Denotes no significant difference within job category
1
Denotes significant difference between variable and first variable (i.e., Most Stress) in job category
2
Denotes significant difference between second variable in job category
44
Relations
w/ Others12
(1.47)
E. SOURCES OF SATISFACTION
A list of 33 potential sources of satisfaction was developed and respondents indicated
how satisfied they were on each item based on a 4-point scale (1=not satisfied, 4=very
satisfied). Thus, the higher the score, the more satisfied the employee feels about that
aspect of work life. Mean scores for each item by job category are presented in the
following table, with the 3 items employees within that job category are most satisfied
(indicated in bold), and the 3 items they are least satisfied (highlighted).
As indicated in the table, all job categories expressed substantial satisfaction with the
opportunity to work independently, the opportunity to use a variety of skills, and access
to cultural events. Less satisfaction was expressed by most job categories with respect to
salary, availability of on-campus childcare, and equitable distribution of resources
(particularly for contract and tenure-line faculty). Workload, a source of low satisfaction
across most job categories in the 2000 Survey, remained a source of low satisfaction only
for administrative and tenure-line faculty, but not for the other job categories.
A graph is presented that indicates the percentages of employees in the total sample that
were satisfied/not satisfied with each of the items. Similarly, there is a table that breaks
out these percentages for each of the six job categories.
Analysis of the satisfaction item data indicated that most of the items could be grouped
into 1 of 6 possible satisfaction factors:
1) Fairness
2) Work Conditions
3) Salary
4) Autonomy/growth
5) Overall job/life satisfaction
6) Access to non-work activities
Items associated with each of these satisfaction factors are presented, followed by graphs
of average satisfaction level for each of the factors for each of the job categories.
The final graph portrays the individual satisfaction items across job categories to allow
for item-by-item comparison across job categories.
These visuals indicate strong satisfaction with access to sporting and cultural events,
flexibility of work hours, and working conditions. The opportunity to telecommute was
also a major source of satisfaction for adjunct, contract, and tenure-line faculty as well as
employees earning wages whereas it was a source of low satisfaction for administrative
faculty and classified staff. Compared to the 2000 Survey, the opportunity to use a
variety of skills emerged as main source of satisfaction and relationship with coworkers
remained a strong element of satisfaction across categories.
45
Mean Scores for Satisfaction Items
Note: 1=Not satisfied, 2=Marginally satisfied, 3=Satisfied, 4=Very satisfied

Highest 3 means for each job category are in BOLD [Highly Satisfied]
Lowest 3 means for each job category are HIGHLIGHTED [Not Satisfied]
Wage
Classified
Group
Total
Mean
Tenureline
Faculty
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
2.84
3.33
2.73
2.6
2.88
2.84
2.35
2.38
2.32
2.04
2.77
2.34
2.32
2.95
2.84
3.14
2.93
3.23
2.8
2.91
2.48
2.54
2.64
2.31
2.36
2.38
2.43
2.35
2.67
2.85
2.42
1.94
2.28
2.43
Work load
2.55
2.28
2.57
2.28
2.71
2.45
2.42
Working conditions
2.89
2.95
3.02
3.41
2.73
2.93
Competency of coworkers
2.9
2.75
3.13
2.98
2.76
2.64
2.8
Job security
2.13
2.85
2.24
3.22
2.32
2.85
2.78
3.31
3.04
3.22
3.02
3.05
3.06
3.08
3.15
3.04
3.3
3.07
3.09
3.02
3.08
Work space
2.45
2.81
2.7
2.7
2.57
2.68
Dial-up access from home

to GMU
2.78
2.7
2.88
2.32
2.8
2.71
Adjunct
Faculty
Admin
Faculty
Contract
Faculty
Mean
Mean
2.5
Fairness
Fair performance
evaluation
Equitable distribution of
resources
Treated with dignity and
respect
Amount of information
Adequate input in the
decision process
Work Conditions
Relationship with
supervisor
Relationship with
coworkers
46
Adjunct
Faculty
Mean
Mean
Mean
Tenureline
Faculty
Mean
Admin Contract
Faculty Faculty
Wage
Classified
Group
Total
Mean
Mean
Mean
Work Conditions Salary and Benefits

Salary
1.33
2.13
1.78
1.98
1.77
1.73
1.84
Retirement benefits
1.29
2.82
2.65
2.52
2.58
2.58
Heath care benefits
1.22
2.83
2.61
2.4
1.75
2.54
2.52
Availability of on-campus
child care
2.25
2.27
2.5
2.27
2.31
2.67
2.59
3.05
2.78
2.41
2.67
2.69
2.42
2.92
2.9
2.77
2.75
3.06
2.88
2.86
3.24
3.45
3.55
2.96
3.1
3.5
2.29
3.23
2.33
2.66
3.24
3.14
3.35
2.96
2.77
2.91
3.02
2.53
2.39
2.52
2.14
2.52
2.51
3.37
3.39
3.48
3.6
3.33
3.32
3.4
2.85
2.73
3.26
3.11
2.39
2.63
2.8
2.95
2.96
3.41
3.13
2.67
2.63
2.9
3.25
3.21
3.48
3.44
2.86
3.12
3.22
2.47
2.81
2.76
2.77
2.64
2.73
Autonomy / Growth
Opportunity to develop new
skills
Opportunity for scholarly
pursuits
Flexibility of work hours
Opportunity to telecommute
Sense that work is
meaningful
achievements
Opportunity to work
independently
Opportunity for professional
growth
Opportunity to develop new
ideas
Opportunity to use a variety
of skills
Overall Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction

Balance between work and
personal life
2.76
2.77
3.05
2.76
2.95
2.94
2.87
Overall job satisfaction
2.8
2.84
2.95
2.65
2.9
2.77
2.79
47
Mean
Mean
Mean
Tenureline
Faculty
Mean
Access to recreational
facilities
2.61
2.72
2.89
2.74
2.84
2.75
2.75
Access to cultural events
2.69
3.13
3.55
3.03
2.94
3.32
3.17
Access to sporting events
2.58
3.2
3.64
2.69
2.57
3.18
3.05
Adjunct
Faculty
Admin Contract
Faculty Faculty
Wage
Classified
Group
Total
Mean
Mean
Mean
Access to Non-Work Activities
Opportunities to work independently, opportunities to use a variety of skills, and

access to cultural events were the highest means across groups.
Salary, availability of on-campus childcare, and equitable distribution of resources

Opportunities to work independently, opportunities to use a variety of skills, and

access to cultural events were the highest means across groups.
Salary, availability of on-campus childcare, and equitable distribution of resources

48
Comparison of Responses on Satisfaction Items for All Respondents

Fairness
Fair work performance evaluation
resources
Treated with dignity and respect
Amount of info provided
concerning decisions affecting
you
Adequate input in the decision
process
Work Conditions
Work load
Working conditions (comfort,
safety)
Job security
Relationships with coworkers
Work space
Dial-up access from home to
GMU
Salary / Benefits
Salary
Retirement benefits
Availability of on-campus child
care
Autonomy / Growth
Opportunities to develop new
skills
Opportunity for scholarly pursuits
Opportunity to telecommute/work
from home
Key
70%
30%
46%
54%
71%
29%
49%
51%
49%
51%
51%
49%
72%
28%
70%
66%
79%
84%
61%
30%
34%
21%
16%
39%
67%
25%
33%
75%
59%
56%
43%
57%
63%
70%
81%
60%
Very Satisfied/Satisfied
49
41%
44%
37%
30%
19%
40%
Marginally
Satisfied/Not Satisfied
Autonomy / Growth, continued

Sense that your work is
meaningful
achievements and milestones
Opportunity to work
independently
Opportunity to use a variety of
skills
Opportunity for professional
growth
Opportunity to develop new ideas
Control over my work life
Overall job / Life satisfaction
family/personal life
Access to non-work activities
Access to recreational/fitness
facilities
Key
76%
24%
51%
49%
93%
7%
85%
68%
32%
72%
67%
28%
33%
70%
30%
68%
32%
70%
30%
85%
82%
Very Satisfied/Satisfied
50
15%
15%
18%
Marginally
Satisfied/Not Satisfied
Satisfaction Item
Reported Satisfaction
Total %
Adjunct
Faculty %
Admin
Faculty %
Contract
Faculty %
Tenure-line
Faculty %
Wages %
Classified
%
Very sat/Satisfied
Marginally Sat/Not sat
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
70.6
29.4
47.6
52.4
71.9
28.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
47.1
52.9
81.0
19.0
61.9
38.1
52.9
47.1
69.1
30.9
50.9
49.1
70.2
29.8
57.9
42.1
59.6
40.4
90.5
9.5
47.4
52.6
86.4
13.6
59.1
40.9
65.0
35.0
63.6
36.4
33.3
66.7
66.7
33.3
44.4
55.6
51.1
48.9
66.7
33.3
61.5
38.5
86.4
13.6
40.9
59.1
27.8
72.2
74.4
25.6
51.3
48.7
66.3
33.7
44.7
55.3
43.2
56.8
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
52.0
48.0
71.9
28.1
69.7
30.3
65.7
34.3
78.6
21.4
83.3
16.7
61.0
39.0
67.0
33.0
65.0
35.0
73.7
26.3
81.0
19.0
40.0
60.0
87.5
12.5
85.0
15.0
45.0
55.0
72.2
27.8
42.1
57.9
73.7
26.3
64.9
35.1
66.7
33.3
78.9
21.1
77.2
22.8
71.9
28.1
71.7
28.3
60.9
39.1
78.3
21.7
82.6
17.4
38.1
61.9
91.3
8.7
91.3
8.7
56.5
43.5
70.6
29.4
45.7
54.3
72.7
27.3
80.0
20.0
82.2
17.8
75.6
24.4
84.4
15.6
63.6
36.4
51.4
48.6
61.9
38.1
90.9
9.1
66.7
33.3
57.9
42.1
72.7
27.3
90.9
9.1
78.9
21.1
78.6
21.4
54.2
45.8
63.1
36.9
61.9
38.1
69.4
30.6
76.5
23.5
82.4
17.6
53.5
46.5
67.7
32.3
Fairness
Fair and equitable work
performance evaluation
resources
Treated with dignity and
respect
Info provided concerning
decisions affecting you
Adequate input in the
decision process
Work Conditions
Work load
Working conditions
(comfort, safety)
Job security
Relationship with
supervisor
Relationships with
coworkers
Work space
Dial-up access from home
to GMU
50
Satisfaction Item
Total %
Adjunct
Faculty %
Admin
Faculty %
Contract
Faculty %
Tenure-line
Faculty %
Wages %
Classified
%
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
25.3
74.7
59.2
40.8
56.3
43.7
44.4
55.6
4.8
95.2
14.3
85.7
11.1
88.9
50.0
50.0
39.3
60.7
73.2
26.8
71.7
28.3
36.4
63.6
17.4
82.6
60.0
40.0
55.6
44.4
50.0
50.0
37.0
63.0
63.0
37.0
52.4
47.6
20.0
80.0
13.6
86.4
25.0
75.0
25.0
75.0
66.7
33.3
20.0
80.0
52.9
47.1
54.9
45.1
54.5
45.5
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
63.8
36.2
70.0
30.0
81.1
18.9
61.4
38.6
76.0
24.0
52.0
48.0
92.8
7.2
85.0
15.0
69.0
31.0
72.2
27.8
57.9
42.1
73.7
26.3
90.0
10.0
85.7
14.3
46.7
53.3
100.0
90.0
10.0
75.0
25.0
60.7
39.3
70.0
30.0
78.6
21.4
47.4
52.6
78.9
21.1
48.1
51.9
93.0
7.0
87.7
13.3
69.6
30.4
77.3
22.7
66.7
33.3
85.7
14.3
84.6
15.4
87.0
13.0
73.7
26.3
100.0
95.7
4.3
87.0
13.0
64.4
35.6
65.9
34.1
88.6
11.4
73.2
26.8
76.1
23.9
47.7
52.3
97.8
2.2
95.6
4.4
82.2
17.8
41.2
58.8
68.8
31.3
95.0
5.0
71.4
28.6
63.6
36.4
42.9
57.1
90.5
9.5
63.6
36.4
50.0
50.0
64.7
35.3
77.6
22.4
75.9
24.1
50.0
50.0
71.8
28.2
54.3
45.7
87.1
12.9
79.1
20.9
59.0
41.0
Salary / Benefits
Salary
Retirement benefits
Availability of on-campus
child care
Autonomy / Growth
Opportunities to develop
new skills
Opportunity for scholarly
pursuits
Opportunity to
telecommute
Sense that work is
meaningful
achievements/milestones
Opportunity to work
independently
variety of skills
Opportunity for
professional growth
51
Satisfaction Item
Opportunity to develop
new ideas
Control over my work life
73.1
26.9
67.6
32.4
Adjunct
Faculty %
85.7
14.3
57.9
42.1
Admin
Faculty %
78.9
21.1
66.7
33.3
Contract
Faculty %
95.5
4.5
81.8
18.2
Tenure-line
Faculty %
86.7
13.3
68.9
31.1
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
70.6
29.4
68.1
31.9
71.4
28.6
65.0
35.0
64.9
35.1
73.2
26.8
86.4
13.6
77.3
22.7
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
70.8
29.2
85.7
14.3
82.5
17.5
66.7
33.3
62.5
37.5
58.3
41.7
72.0
28.0
86.8
13.2
90.2
9.8
73.7
26.3
100.0
92.9
7.1
Total %
Very sat/Satisfied
Very sat/Satisfied
61.1
38.9
68.2
31.8
Classified
%
55.8
44.2
65.9
34.1
62.2
37.8
63.0
37.0
66.7
33.3
76.2
23.8
75.6
24.4
63.9
36.1
74.3
25.7
80.0
20.0
72.4
27.6
73.7
26.3
68.8
31.2
50.0
50.0
68.0
32.0
92.3
7.7
90.4
9.6
Wages %
Overall job / life satisfaction

family/personal life
Access to recreational /
fitness facilities
52
SOURCE OF SATISFACTION CATEGORIES

Fairness
Fair and equitable performance evaluation
Equitable distribution of resources
Treated with dignity and respect
Amount of information provided concerning decisions made
Adequate input in the decision process
Work Conditions
Work load
Work conditions
Job security
Relationships with coworkers
Work space
Dial-up access from home to GMU
Salary / Benefits
Salary
Retirement benefits
Healthcare benefits
Availability of on-campus childcare
Autonomy / Growth
Opportunities to develop new skills
Opportunity for scholarly pursuits
Opportunity to telecommute
Sense that work is meaningful
Special recognition for achievements
Opportunity to work independently

Opportunity to use a variety of skills
Opportunity for professional growth
Opportunity to develop new ideas
Overall job / life satisfaction

Balance between work and family or personal life
Access to recreational/fitness facilities
53
Perceived Satisfaction Across Job Categories

(1=Not satisfied, 2=Marginally satisfied, 3=Satisfied, 4=Very satisfied)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fairness
Work Conditions
Salary & Benefits
Autonomy & Grow th
Access to Non-Work Activities
W
ag
e
C
la
ss
ifi
ed
cu
lty
elin
Fa
cu
lty
Fa
lty
Te
nu
r
es
tri
ct
ed
Fa
cu
m
in
Ad
Ad
ju
nc
tF
ac
ul
ty
Overall Job & Life Satisfaction
Differences in Perceived Satisfaction Within Job Category
Job
Catego
ry
Adjunct
Faculty
Administrative
Faculty
Restricted
Faculty
Tenure-line
Faculty
Wage
Classified
Most
Satisfied
(1st var)
Autonomy
(2.91)
Access to
Non-Work
(2.98)
Access to
Non-Work
(3.22)
Autonomy
(3.02)
Overall
(2.93)
Access to
Non-Work
(3.04)
Least
Satisfied
(2d var)
Work
Conditions0
(2.79)
Autonomy0
Overall0
(2.86)
Autonomy0
(2.79)
Work
Conditions0
(2.80)
Overall0
(3.21)
Access to
Non-Work0
(2.91)
Work
Conditions0
(2.93)
Overall0
(2.98)
Work
Conditions0
(2.82)
Access to
Non-Work0
(2.87)
Autonomy0
Access to
Non-Work0
(2.62)
Overall 0
Fairness1
Salary12
(2.57)
Fairness0
(1.38)
Salary1
(2.80)
Work
Conditions0
(2.89)
Overall0
(2.66)
Fairness0
(2.55)
Salary1
(2.88)
Fairness1
(2.25)
Salary12
(2.70)
Autonomy0
(2.49)
Fairness0
(2.30)
Salary1
(2.83)
Work
Conditions0
(2.76)
(2.68)
Fairness0
(1.85)
Salary1
(2.85)
(2.83)
(2.54)
(2.26)
Note:
0
Denotes no significant difference within job category
1
Denotes significant difference between variable and first variable (i.e., Most Satisfied) in job category
54
Denotes significant difference between second variable in job category
55
F. GENDER AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

Gender Differences
We tested for mean differences between male and female employees in terms of sources of
stress and satisfaction. These analyses controlled for job category, which would account
for potential differences due to differential representation (a greater proportion of women
are in classified positions than faculty positions).
There were no significant gender differences related to organizational commitment. As
indicated in the table, as an overall trend, females report greater satisfaction, less stress, and
more perceived organizational support than men in this sample.
Male
Female
Satisfaction Items:
(1 = Not satisfied; 2 = Marginally satisfied; 3 = Satisfied; 4 = Very satisfied)
Balance between work and family life
2.70
2.97
Work load
2.27
2.51
Opportunity to work independently
3.30
3.47
2.99
3.29
Stress Items:
(1 = Not a source of stress; 2 = Minimal stress; 3 = Moderate stress; 4 = Extreme stress)
My physical health
2.40
2.12
Personal finances
2.48
2.22
2.02
1.75
Commuting
2.23
1.82
Perceived Organizational Support:
(Local Work Unit Level and University Level)
POS at the local work unit level
3.67
3.89
Comparison with 2000 Gender Differences:
Work load, and access to cultural events all had significant gender differences in both 2000
and 2003. In 2000, there were gender differences (less favorable for women) in the
following areas: opportunity to develop new skills, availability of on-campus child care,
competency of co-workers, and opportunity to use a variety of skills. However, in 2003,
there were no gender differences in these areas.
My physical heath is the only item that had significant gender differences (more stressful
for men) in both 2000 and 2003. In 2000, there were gender differences in keeping up with
technology and managing household responsibilities (more stressful for women); these
differences were not significant in the 2003 sample.
56
In 2000, there were no gender differences in perceived organizational support or affective

organizational commitment. However, in 2003, females reported significantly higher
perceptions of organizational support at the local work unit level than did men.
57
Ethnic Differences
We tested for mean differences between Caucasians and Non-Caucasians in terms of
sources of satisfaction and stress (there were not sufficient numbers of minorities to
provide a more detailed examination of differences between different minority groups).
These analyses controlled for job category, which would account for potential differences
due to differential representation (a greater proportion of Caucasians are in faculty
positions than classified positions).
There were no significant ethnic differences related to the satisfaction items, perceived
organizational support, or organizational commitment. As indicated in the table, as a
general trend, Caucasians reported less stress than Non-Caucasians.
Caucasians
Non-Caucasians
Stress Items:
(1 = Not a source of stress; 2 = Minimal stress; 3 = Moderate stress; 4 = Extreme stress)
Personal finances
2.23
2.74
Fairness in hiring
1.64
2.03
Affordable housing
1.83
2.39
1.49
1.92
Cost of child care
1.64
2.20
Comparison with 2000 Ethnic Differences:
In 2003, there were no significant differences with respect to sources of satisfaction. This
is in sharp contrast to the year 2000 for which there were a number of significant ethnic
differences, all of which were less favorable for Non-Caucasians: opportunity to develop
new skills, opportunity for scholarly pursuits, sense that work is meaningful, opportunity to
use a variety of skills, opportunity to develop new ideas, overall job satisfaction, access to
cultural events, access to sporting events, salary, working conditions, and work space,
access to recreational/fitness facilities, job security.
In terms of sources of stress, there were ethnic differences (again, less favorable for NonCaucasians) in the areas of personal finances, affordable housing, cost of child care, and
subtle discrimination in 2000 and 2003. There were ethnic differences in lack of promotion
opportunities and work load in 2000, but in 2003 these differences were not significant.
In 2000, Non-Caucasians reported lower perceptions of organizational support at the local
work unit level. However, in 2003, there were no ethnic differences in perceived
organizational support.
58
G. Categories of Open-ended Comments (Short Form, N=241)

Total Number of Responses
for all Employees
Handled
Well
Benefits
o Access to culture/sports
17
29
11
0
0
1
29
5
3
0
23
1
1
6
16
59
1
7
10
33
o Tuition benefits for

dependents
o Time off
o Pre-tax deductions
o Healthcare
Budget
Pay
Change/Input
Child care
Communication
o Keeping informed re:
budget
o Keeping informed re: 9/11,
Iraq, world events
o Amount of information
provided
Computers
o Technology
o Banner
o UCIS Staff help
Could be Total Number of Responses

Improved for all Employees
Handled
Well
Could be
Improved
Equity
o Fair treatment/Equitable
distribution of resources
Evaluations/Promotions
20
0
6
7
1
2
3
3
16
2
20
10
6
6
12
8
o Staff recognition
o Performance appraisal
Facilities
o Building
o Office space
o Classroom conditions
o Food services
o Supplies
Flextime/Telework
10
Funding
13
0
2
1
1
6
4
4
1
0
21
16
4
1
10
2
7
o Travel funds
o Research funding
Hiring/Firing
o Keeping Staff
o Increasing Staff
53
o Internet
Total Number of Responses

for all Employees
Handled
Well
Parking/Commuting
o Shuttle between campuses
o Parking cost
o Parking availability
Students/Class size
o Tuition decisions
o Diversity of student body
Time/Workload
6
0
1
1
13
3
2
3
Management
Could be Total Number of Responses

Improved for all Employees
15
3
12
17
6
3
0
2
Training/Mentoring
o Growth opportunities
Miscellaneous
o Safety
o E-journals
o Campus aesthetics
o Handicap access
o Speeding on campus
54
14
Handled
Well
Could be
Improved
1
2
1
3
2
5
0
0
5
4
1
3
1
1

QWL

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

QWL

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Draft Report

Findings from the

IV. MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

Sense that work is

Flexible work hours

MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION

Availability of oncampus child care

Availability of oncampus child care

Availability of oncampus child care

Availability of oncampus child care

V. MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE STRESS

MAIN SOURCES OF EMPLOYEE NON-STRESS

Cost of child care

VI. OVERVIEW OF PURPOSE AND METHOD

B. Description of the Sample

Response Rates by Job Classification and Campus

Perceived Organizational Support

Norms for comparison purposes:

64 group leaders in a manufacturing plant: POS=2.50

Perceived Local Work Unit Support

Perceived Organizational Support at the

B. AFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT (AOC)

Norms for comparison purposes:

116 new non-faculty employees in an educational institution: AOC=3.21

132 former graduate students, now employed: AOC=3.02

337 full-time employees in three organizations: AOC=3.24

WORK-FAMILY CULTURE (WFC)

Mean Scores for Stress Items

Note: 1=Not a source of stress, 2=Minimal stress, 3=Moderate stress, 4=Extreme

Availability of child care

Cost of child care

Care of an elderly parent

Relations With Others

University budget concerns, managing household responsibilities, and personal

Personal safety on campus, subtle discrimination, and keeping up with technology

Since parking availability and/or cost may differ by campus, we investigated

Comparison of Responses on Stress Items for All Respondents

Comparison of Responses on Stress Items for All Respondents, Continued

SOURCE OF STRESS CATEGORIES

Perceived Stress Across Job Categories

Relations With Others

Parking & Commuting

Differences in Perceived Stress Within Job Category

Mean Scores for Satisfaction Items

Note: 1=Not satisfied, 2=Marginally satisfied, 3=Satisfied, 4=Very satisfied

Dial-up access from home

Work Conditions Salary and Benefits

Heath care benefits

Overall Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction

Overall job satisfaction

Access to cultural events

Access to sporting events

Access to Non-Work Activities

Opportunities to work independently, opportunities to use a variety of skills, and

Salary, availability of on-campus childcare, and equitable distribution of resources

Opportunities to work independently, opportunities to use a variety of skills, and

Salary, availability of on-campus childcare, and equitable distribution of resources

Comparison of Responses on Satisfaction Items for All Respondents

Autonomy / Growth, continued

Overall job / life satisfaction

SOURCE OF SATISFACTION CATEGORIES

Opportunity to work independently