College and Research Libraries Job Satisfaction of Academic Librarians: An Examination of the Relationships between Satisfaction, Faculty Status, and Participation Bonnie Horenstein This stu4y examines job satisfaction of academic librarians as it relates to faculty status and participation of librarians in library planning and decision making, university academic affairs, and professional library activities. A questionnaire was distributed to librarians in 300 United States academic libraries at a random sample of universities and colleges in the United States with enrollments exceeding 2,000 students. An SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) data analysis of 638 responses focused on job satisfaction of three groups of librarians: librarians with no faculty status or rank; librarians with either faculty status or rank, but not both; and librarians with both faculty status and rank. Academic librarians with both faculty status and rank were more satisfied than librarians in the other two groups. They also perceived themselves as more involved in library planning and decision making, more frequently consulted, better informed about matters affecting the library, and more involved in the university. The best predictors of overall satisfaction were perception of participation, salary, and possession of academic rank. acuity status for academic librarians is a pervasive topic in library literature and an issue of continuing debate. This study explores job satisfaction of academic librarians and its relationship to faculty status of librarians. Are faculty librarians more satisfied than those who lack faculty positions or those with hy- brid status? Do librarians with faculty status participate more in library plan- ning, decision making, university activi- ties, and professional activities beyond the university? Do faculty librarians per- ceive a greater level of participation than other librarians? Is participation related to satisfaction? These are the pertinent questions addressed here. This study examines job satisfaction as it relates to faculty status of librarians, and participation of librarians in library planning and decision making, univer- sity academic affairs, and professional library activities. Information about job satisfaction in general for academic librarians, including a profile of satis- factory and unsatisfactory aspects of the profession, was also sought. Some of the Bonnie Horenstein is Coordinator of Catalog Services and Assistant Professor of Library Science at Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530. The author would like to thank Gary Zaslow for his assistance in the statistical analysis, the Derner Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies at Adelphi University for their guidance, and Reuben Molloy for his assistance in the setup of the data. 255 256 College & Research Libraries variables emerging from previous re- search, which will be discussed in the next section, "Literature Review," were tested in the context of librarianship in the 1990s. The survey was aimed at the rank- and-file professional academic librarian. Deans, associate deans, and directors were excluded. Part-time librarians were also excluded. Since responsibilities, participation, and expectations of librar- ians in very small institutions can be quite different from those in larger set- tings, institutions with enrollments of under 2,000 students were excluded. The population studied was full-time librarians in universities and. colleges in the United States with enrollments of 2,000 or more students as listed in Patter- son's American Education. Public and pri- vate institutions were included. LITERATURE REVIEW A review of library literature revealed little information relating job satisfac- tion to faculty status of librarians. While faculty status of librarians receives abundant attention in the literature of librarianship, there are no empirical stu- dies of its effect on job satisfaction. Faculty status might be regarded as a key benefit to academic librarians and assumed to positively affect job satisfac- tion. Yet, the reverse has also been hy- pothesized. Harold V. Hosel argued that faculty status increases role conflict and role ambiguity, both components of role stress, which might thereby reduce job satisfaction. He suggested the need for further research in this area to test his inferences. 1 Although job satisfaction has received some attention in library literature, it has often been related to participative man- agement style. Participative management refers to a style of management that stresses the importance of involving work- ers in management decision making.2 In a landmark study involving twenty-two academic libraries in the 1970s, Maurice P. Marchant identified participative man- agement style as the strongest predictor of librarians' job satisfaction.3 Marchant's findings were tested and supported by May1993 Dale Susan Bengston and Dorothy Shields in a single-institution study of Brigham Young University.4 Management style was again found to be a strong pre- dictor of librarians' job satisfaction. Several other studies have explored job satisfaction of academic librarians re- lated to gender of the librarian.5 In other studies, job satisfaction of library work- ers (professional and clerical) was re- lated to the unit of the library where they worked, with contradictory findings. While Steven Seokho Chwe found no significant differences between overall satisfaction of reference librarians and catalogers in university libraries and George P. D'Elia found no differences be- tween satisfaction of public and technical services librarians, Beverly P. Lynch and Jo . Ann Verdin found that reference librari- ans were more satisfied.6•7•8 In a recent study, Mohammed H. Mir- fakhrai compared job satisfaction of aca- demic librarians in large and small-size university libraries, finding higher levels of overall satisfaction among librarians in small libraries.9 Leigh Estabrook, Chloe Bird, and Frederick L. Gilmore examined the relationship of technological change to job satisfaction of librarians and sup- port staff, finding that sources of job satisfaction-namely, income, social in- teraction, and discretion over work- have not changed with automation.10 In "A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984," Janet Krompart and Clara DiFelice noted a lack of information about "what librarians experience and think" because surveys are usually directed to library directors and only about 25 percent "queried librarians." 11 METHODOLOGY The survey instrument was a fifty- five-item questionnaire written by the author (see appendix). Several standard instruments for measuring job satisfac- tion were considered but deemed inap- propriate for the purpose of this research. Therefore, an instrument was developed specifically for this study. The first section of the questionnaire elicited background information, such as faculty status, rank, salary, tenure and other benefits, gender, and department of respondent. Faculty status and faculty rank were assumed to be either institu- tionally granted or not. Faculty rank was understood by the author to mean instruc- tor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. The second section of the questionnaire gathered information about the participation and perceived participa- tion of the responding librarian in library planning and decision making, university academic structures, and professional li- brary activities. The final section of the questionnaire focused on job satisfaction, including twenty-one aspects as well as "overall satisfaction" to which librarians responded on a scale of 1 to 5. A checkoff format was chosen for the questionnaire in an effort to minimize the time respon- dents needed to complete it and to max- imize the probability that the ques- tionnaires would be returned. The questionnaires were mailed to the dean or director of a random sample of 300 libraries from the population de- fined above. Five copies were included in an effort to broaden the number of respondents (without increasing post- age) and to provide more than one point of view from the library. In a cover letter from the author, each dean or director was asked to distribute the question- naires to the first five librarians on his/her alphabetical roster of full-time professional staff. The questionnaire was distributed in April 1991. Two weeks were allowed for returns. RESPONSE Six hundred and forty of the 1,500 questionnaires distributed were re- turned, yielding a return rate of 42.6 per- cent. The response was much higher than anticipated. An extremely low budget had precluded providing return postage, or even a printed questionnaire. Therefore, the high response rate sug- gested the topic captured the interest of the sample population. Attached com- ments, anecdotes, and lengthy personal statements reinforced the author's per- ception that the questionnaire was posi- tively received and generated high interest among the targeted librarians. Job Satisfaction 257 Several of the receiving libraries did not cooperate in the distribution of ques- tionnaires, citing tight budgets, a clutter of questionnaires, and, according to one library, irrelevance to its mission. DATA ANALYSIS The responses from 638 questionnaires were coded and included in an SPSS data analysis. Two of the questionnaires out of the 640 received were excluded from analysis because the respondents were ad- ministrative or part-time staff. Three groups of librarians were iden- tified based on responses to question 1 (Do you have faculty status?) and question 2 (Do you have faeulty rank?) on the ques- tionnaire. Six hundred and thirty- one re- spondents had answered both questions 1 and 2. Group 1 included librarians with no ·faculty status or rank (n = 190); Group 2 included librarians with either faculty status or rank, but not both (n = 112); and Group 3 included librarians with both faculty status and rank (n = 329). The data analysis was structured to yield the following information: • Profile of respondents, including edu- cation, years of service, salary, and other background data. Number and percent of librarians who report faculty status and rank as defined in Groups 1-3. • Job satisfaction of respondents (Ques- tions 33-54). Is it different for Groups 1, 2, and 3? • Profile of aspects of academic librarian- ship most/least satisfying to librarians. • Relationship of participation to job satisfaction? Is participation different for Groups 1, 2, and 3? • Relationship of job satisfaction to re- spondent's years in the profession, salary, gender, department, tenure sta- tus, rank, or other background data. • Frequency of response for each ques- tion. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS What were some of the general charac- teristics of the responding librarians? Of the responding librarians (n = 636), 67.5 percent indicated they had faculty sta- tus; 32.5 percent did not. Faculty rank was held by 54.5 percent and 45.5 percent did 258 College & Research Libraries not have rank (n = 637). Both rank and status were held by 52.2 percent. A large proportion of the librarians (38.3 percent) (n = 630) had more than fifteen years of experience in professional positions. Salaries were middle-range with 51.2 percent earning between $25,000 to $35,000 per year (n = 629). Publication a~ a requirement by their institutions was cited by 28.6 percent of the responding librarians and 29 percent indicated there was no publication required (n = 610). Table 1 summarizes demographic data for the respondents. JOB SATISFACTION OF RESPONDENTS The aspects of job satisfaction listed on the questionnaire were derived from stu- dies of job satisfaction and included both intrinsic and extrinsic measures. Intrin- sic items are inherent in the activity, such as assigned duties or management style, while extrinsic items are external to the work, such as salary and benefits. Librarians responded to all of the satisfaction items on a 5-point scale, where 1 is unsatisfactory, 3 is satisfactory, and 5 is highly satisfactory. Overall satisfaction was assessed in two ways. Question 54, "overall satisfaction with your job," queried the librarians' overall satisfac- tion directly. In addition, the sum of re- sponses to items 33 to 53, which related to the various aspects of job satisfaction, was calculated for each respondent as a measure of overall job satisfaction. In cases where an individual omitted an item, the sum was not calculated. A factor analysis was performed on the satisfaction items. Factor analysis is used in statistics to identify a small num- ber of factors underlying complex phe- nomena.12 The satisfaction items all loaded onto a single factor, showing they were in fact measuring the same phe- nomenon. Reliability analysis was performed on the sum of questions 33 to 53 to test how reliable the sum served as a measure of overall satisfaction. It was found to be reliable (alpha= .9290) and is considered a better measure of satisfaction than the single question 54, overall satisfaction. May1993 Librarians reported above satisfactory levels of overall job satisfaction. Ques- tion 54, "overall satisfaction with your job," resulted in a mean response of 3.52 (n = 631/sd = .93). Overall satisfaction as measured by the sum of 33 to 53 resulted in a mean of 68.01 (n = 549/sd = 14.55). In this category, a mean value of 63 indi- cates "satisfactory" and a value of 105 indicates "highly satisfactory." Thus librarians responded a little more posi- tively to the single question "overall satisfaction" than the sum of their re- sponses to all of the i terns. Aspects of librarians' position that were most satisfactory to the total group in rank order were relationship with li- brary users, relationship with peers, as- signed duties, and opportunities for variety. Aspects of their position that librarians in the total group found least satisfactory in rank order were oppor- tunities for promotion or other advance- ment, other recognition for accom- plishments, and salary. Approximately twenty librarians voiced their feelings about their jobs with attached personal statements or comments. On the positive side, individual librarians spoke favorably about the au- tonomy and control they enjoyed in their work and in such matters as governance, evaluation, hiring and retention, good relations with colleagues and staff, and involvement in decision-making pro- cesses. On the negative side, librarians complained about low salaries, poor raises, lack of private office space, nega- tive budgetary impacts (such as reduced staffing and greater workloads), poorly ar- ticulated promotion standards, lack of op- portunity for meaningful participation, poor management, and department-head- dominated decision-making structures. Table 2 summarizes satisfaction of the total group with the various aspects of their jobs. In order to examine the relationship of faculty status to job satisfaction, analysis of variance was performed to determine the satisfaction of Groups 1, 2, and 3 to each of the satisfaction items (Questions 33 to 54 and the sum of 33 to 53). When significant differences among the groups Job Satisfaction 259 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA OF RESPONDENTS Group 1 Group 2 Group3 Total n = 190 n = 112 n= 329 n=631 Status yes 0 86.6 100 67.5 no 100 13.4 0 32.5 Rank yes 0 13.4 100 54.5 no 100 86.6 0 45.5 Sabbaticals yes 13.2 70.8 79.1 57.9 no 86.8 29.2 20.9 42.1 Tenure eligibility yes 12.4 54.1 84.7 57.5 no 87.6 45.9 15.3 42.5 Grants eligibility yes 25.7 . 79.4 87.1 67.5 no 74.3 20.6 12.9 32.5 1 0-month work year or less yes 6.0 16.8 29.3 20.0 no 94.0 83.2 70.7 80.0 Tenured yes 28.8 45.0 55.5 49.8 no 71.2 55.0 44.5 50.2 Years as a professional librarian 0-3 21.6 8.1 14.9 15.7 4-9 25.3 26.1 24.3 24.9 10-15 22.6 23.4 19.5 21.1 over 15 24.1 19.5 56.4 38.3 Salary under 25,000 27.0 18.8 14.9 19.2 25,000-30,000 34.4 28.6 26.5 29.3 31,000-35,000 21.7 22.3 22.0 21.9 36,000-40,000 9.5 17.0 14.6 13.5 41,000-45,000 5.8 5.4 12.5 9.2 over 45,000 1.6 8.0 9.5 6.8 Publication requirement for promotion, tenure, or other advancement None 54.5 38.0 12.0 29.0 Publication encouraged 32.6 36.1 38.9 36.6 Some publication required 7.3 14.8 30.9 21.1 Substantial record of publication required .6 3.7 12.7 7.5 Other 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.8 Academic rank held Instructor .7 11.1 19.3 13.4 Assistant professor .7 13.1 45.9 29.2 Associate professor 3.0 11.1 24.5 16.9 Professor 0 5.1 4.3 3.4 Other 95.6 58.6 5.8 36.7 Department Acquisitions 5.9 5.4 7.0 6.4 Reference 47.3 47.3 42.2 44.7 Automated systems 5.9 5.4 5.2 5.4 Cataloging 14.9 18.8 15.6 15.9 Serials 4.3 1.8 4.9 4.1 Other 21.8 21.4 25.1 23.4 Gender Male 27.8 24.5 29.5 28.1 Female 72.2 75.5 70.2 71.7 (continued) 260 College & Research Libraries May1993 TABLE 1 (continued) DEMOGRAPHIC DATA OF RESPONDENTS Group 1 n= 190 Education M.L.S. 70.7 Additional master's 23.4 Ph.D. 3.7 Other 2.1 TABLE2 ASPECTS OF LIBRARIANSHIP RANKED FROM MOST SATISFACTORY TO LEAST BASED ON RESPONSES OF TOTAL GROUP Mean Satisfaction with ... (Total) Relationship with library users 4 Relationship with peers 3.88 Assigned duties 3.74 Opportunities for variety 3.73 Opportunities to use your own 3.68 judgment Opportunities for independence 3.63 Opportunities to use your abilities, education, training 3.63 Opportunites for professional 3.48 participation Opportunities for challenge or 3.44 creativity Relationship with library 3.29 administration Working conditions 3.16 Benefits 3.15 Workload 2.96 Opportunities to partcipate in library planning and decision 2.90 making Opportunities for university 2.89 participation Management's style 2.88 Relationship with university 2.83 administration Status of librarians at your 2.80 institution Salary 2.70 Other recognition for 2.68 accomplishments Opportunities for promotion or other advancement 2.66 Group2 Group3 Total n = 112 n =329 n= 631 50.9 48.3 55:5 37.5 41.0 35.1 6.3 3.0 3.8 5.4 7.6 5.6 were found, Duncan tests were applied. Duncan's multiple range test is one of a number of tests used in statistics to com- pare all possible pairs of group means. 13 The test is used here to compare the groups and find out how they are differ- ent from each other. FACULTY STATUS/RANK AND JOB SATISFACTION A positive relationship was found be- tween faculty status/rank and job satis- faction. Significant differences in satis- faction were found among the groups of respondents. Librarians with faculty rank and status (Group 3) reported significantly higher levels of overall satisfaction (Question 54) than librarians in Groups 1 or 2. When overall satisfaction was measured by the sum of responses to all of the satisfaction items, librarians in Group 3 also had markedly higher levels of satis- faction than those in Groups 1 or 2. Librarians in Group 3 were more satisfied with many of the aspects of their jobs than librarians in the hybrid group (rank/no status or status/no rank) or in the group with no rank or status. Signifi- cant differences occurred in fourteen of the twenty-three items considered. Table 3 summarizes the data for satis- faction variables where significant differ- ences were found among the groups. As the significance level approached 0, and the F ratio increased, the more reliable the differ- ences were among the groups noted in the last column. Group differences notation may be interpreted as follows: 3 > 1, 2 indicates Group 3 had higher levels of satisfaction than Groups 1 or 2; 3 > 2 > 1 indicates Group 3 had higher levels of satisfaction than Group 2 and Group 2 had higher levels than Group 1; 3 > 1 2 > 1 indicates both Groups 3 and 2 had higher Job Satisfaction 261 TABLE3 SATISFACTION RELATED TO FACULTY STATUS VARIABLES WITH SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG GROUPS Mean Variable (Total) mGRPI mGRP2 mGRP3 Signif. Group F Ratio Difference Relation with library administration (n = 625) 3.28 3.39 3.28 3.52 .0301 3.52 3 > 2 Relation with university administration (n = 614) 2.83 2.60 2.73 2.99 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 9.27 3> 2,1 30.33 3 > 2 > 1 25.46 3 > 2 > 1 22.47 3 > 1 Status of librarians (n = 622) 2.80 2.34 2.63 3.12 Salary (n = 622) 2.69 2.22 2.58 2.99 Benefits (n = 627) 3.15 2.71 3.18 3.39 2>1 Opportunities for promotion (n = 627) 2.66 2.28 2.55 2.91 .0000 20.24 3 > 2 > 1 Other recognition for accomplishments (n = 621) 2.68 2.40 2.63 2.85 .0000 10.95 3 > 1 Opportunities to participate in library planning and decision making (n = 628) 2.90 2.76 2.77 3.02 .0253 3.70 3 > 1 Opportunities for university participation (n = 626) 2.89 2.30 3.04 3.17 .0000 45.73 3 > 1 2>1 Opportunities for · professional participation (n = 625) 3.48 3.40 3.33 3.57 .0311 3.49 3 > 1, 2 Opportunities for challenge or creativity (n = 625) 3.44 3.35 3.18 3.59 .0017 6.42 3 > 1, 2 Opportunities for variety (n = 629) 3.73 3. 73 3.53 3.80 .0560 2.90 3 > 2 Overall (Question 54) (n = 624) 3.52 3.42 3.40 3.62 .0252 3.70 3 > 1, 2 Overall (sum 33 to 53) (n = 592) 68.03 64.04 65.74 71.13 .0000 14.34 3 > 1, 2 levels than Group 1, but Group 3 did not have higher levels than Group 2. The most striking differences occurred among the groups in their satisfaction with opportunities for university par- ticipation, status of librarians at their in- stitution, salary, benefits, and oppor- tunities for promotion or other advance- ment. In all cases, Group 3 had signifi- cantly higher levels of satisfaction than one or both of the other groups. No significant differences occurred among the groups in their satisfaction with assigned duties, working conditions, workload, management style, relation with peers, relation with library users, op- portunities for independence, or oppor- tunities to use your own judgment. PARTICIPATION To what extent do academic librarians participate in library planning and deci- sion making, university academic af- fairs, and professional activities beyond their institution? Participation of librari- ans was assessed in several areas of the questionnaire. The extent of actual par- ticipation in teaching, attending meet- ings of the library or university, and p1·ofessional membership and activity beyond the university was queried in Questions 16 to 20. The presence of a formal library planning and decision- making structure and the degree to which librarians were meaningfully con- sulted were addressed in Questions 21 to 262 College & Research Libraries TABLE4 ACTUAL PARTICIPATION BY GROUP Teaching hours per year Library meetings per week University meetings per week Number of library association memberships Number of professional meetings attended per year Sum of above (Questions 16-20) Model of library planning . Regular meetings of professionar staff Presence of library planning group Who serves on planning group? Are recommendations generally implemented? Group Differences None None 3>2>1 None None 3>1 None 3> 1 . None None None 25. Librarians' perception of their par- ticipation was measured on a 4-point scale in Questions 26 to 31. A single score for perceived participation was calcu- lated for each librarian by adding the responses to Questions 26 to 31 in cases where all questions were answered. This is referred to in this paper as "overall perceived participation." Questions 26 to 31 were constructed to measure perceived participation. A fac- tor analysis was performed on Questions 26 to 31. The factor analysis revealed that these questions loaded on to two different factors. It was assumed from this analysis that there are two factors involved in per- ceived participation. Four variables (Ques- tions 26 to 29) were found to correlate highly with each other and all to load onto a single factor. Since these questions were measuring the same factor, a sum was also attained in cases where all four questions were answered. PARTICIPATION AND FACULTY STATUS Analysis of variance was performed to determine if there were differences in how the groups responded. When signif- May1993 icant differences occurred, Duncan tests were applied. There were no significant differences in how the groups responded to the questions on teaching hours, amount of library and professional meetings at- tended, library association membership, or the questions relating to a formal library planning group. The model of library planning and decision making, explicitly whether it provided a low or high degree of participation by librarians, did not differ significantly among the groups. Librarians with faculty status and rank attended more university meetings than the nonfaculty or hybrid groups . They were also more likely to have reg- ular meetings of the professional staff than were nonfaculty librarians. Re- sponses to Questions 16 to 20 were re- coded to low, medium, and high values for the purpose of attaining a sum. The overall time spent in teaching, attending meetings of the library, university, and pro- fessional organizations as measured by this sum was higher among faculty librarians than nonfaculty librarians. This may be due to their higher partici- pation in the university, a common re- quirement for faculty librarians. Differences between the groups in ac- tual participation are summarized in table 4. Although differences occurred among the groups in only two of the categories of actual participation, librarians with faculty status and rank perceive themselves as more par- ticipatory than the other groups. Faculty librarians felt more involved in library planning and decision making, more consulted, more informed by the administration about matters affecting the library, and more involved in the uni- versity than other librarians. In overall perceived participation all of the groups were different, with faculty librarians per- ceiving the greatest level and nonfaculty librarians perceiving the least. The differences between the groups are summarized in table 5. In each case, librarians with faculty status and rank (Group 3) scored signif- icantly higher than Groups 1 and/ or 2. No significant differences occurred among the Job Satisfaction 263 . TABLES PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION BY GROUP Mean* F Group (Total) mGRPl mGRP2 mGRP3 Signif. Ratio Diff. Involved in library planning and decision making n = 628 2.68 2.57 2.56 2.77 .0127 4.39 3 >2, 1 Consulted n = 623 3.10 3.00 2.99 3.19 .0186 4.01 3 >2, 1 Informed n = 626 2.92 2.81 2.85 3.00 .0225 3.82 3>1 Control n = 625 3.43 No significant difference University participation n = 628 2.32 1.67 2.45 2.65 .0000 63.86 3>1 2>1 Professional participation n = 626 2.75 No significant differences Overall perceived participation (sum 26-31) n = 614 17.18 16.12 16.96 17.86 .0000 16.86 3>2>1 Sum of 26-29 (Factor 1) n = 618 12.11 11.79 11.78 12.41 .0111 4.54 3 > 2,1 Sum of 30-31 (Factor 2) n = 614 5.07 4.33 5.15 5.47 .0000 37.28 3>1 2>1 * The mean values in this table result from the four-point scale used to measure perceived participation, where 1 =not at all, 2 =little, 3 =moderately, 4 =to a high degree. groups in the following questions: "To what extent do you feel you exercise con- trol over your day-to-day professional ac- tivities?" and "To what extent do you participate in library professional activities beyond your immediate institution?" As a group, librarians scored highest in control over day-to-day activities (mean = 3.43) and lowest in participation in univer- sity academic affairs (mean = 2.32). RELATIONSHIP OF PARTICIPATION TO SATISFACTION Correlations were run between the participation items (Questions 16 to 32) and all of the satisfaction items (Ques- tions 33 to 53 and the sum of 33 to 53). To further quantify perceived participation for individual respondents a sum of scores on Questions 26 to 31 was calcu- lated. Questions 16 to 20, which dealt with actual participation, were coded to low, medium, and high values and summed for each respondent. Librarians who scored high in actual participation (sum 16 to 20) also scored high in satisfaction. Similarly, librarians with high scores in perceived participa- tion also scored high in sa tis faction. In Tables 6 to 7, as the significance levels approach 0, the relationship is said to be strongest. RELATIONSHIP OF DEMOGRAPHICS TO JOB SATISFACTION The demographic features of the re- sponding librarians were examined as they related to job satisfaction. Higher levels of benefits (eligibility for sabbati- . cals, tenure, research grants, or academic work year) were associated with higher levels of overall satisfaction. Greater benefits were also associated with greater satisfaction with their status, salary, opportunities for promotion or other advancement, and relationship with the university administration. Higher salaries and more years as a professional librarian were associated with higher overall satisfaction and higher satisfaction with many of the items on the questionnaire. Table 7 outlines the demographics of librarians related to overall satisfaction. Although male librarians had higher levels of overall satisfaction when measured as a sum of all of the items, there was no difference between males and females in how they responded to the single item "overall satisfaction." Thus there is some support for previous studies that hypothesize greater job satisfaction among male librarians. 264 College & Research Libraries TABLE6 CORRELATIONS OF PARTICIPATION WITH OVERALL SATISFACTION Sum of Items Question 54 33-53 Sum 16-20 . 1759. .2366 . Sum26-29 .5732 . .7165 • Sum30-31 . 1815. .3029 . * Significance < .01 TABLE7 RELATIONSHIP OF DEMOGRAPHICS WITH OVERALL SATISFACTION Sum of Items Question 54 33-53 Status .0589 .1858+ Rank .1128+ .2116+ Sabbaticals .0779 . 1962+ Tenure eligibility .1175+ .1987+ Research grants .0866 . .1591+ 1 0-month work .1028 . .1903+ year or less Tenured .1027. .0875 Years as a librarian . 0833 . .0969* Salary .1913+ .2750+ Publication .0168 .0089 requirements Academic rank held .0411 .1036. Department .0701 .0449 Gender . 0257 .1030 • Education .0340 .0382 * Significance < .05 t Significance <.01 The department or unit was not found to be related to job satisfaction. REGRESSION ANALYSIS A regression analysis was performed to find out which of the variables best predicts overall satisfaction. The sum of33 to 53 was chosen for the regression analy- sis because it is considered the more reli- able measure of overall satisfaction. In a stepwise regression of all of the variables that correlated most highly with overall satisfaction, the extent to May1993 which librarians felt they are consulted, involved, informed, and in control of their own activities were the best predic- tors of overall satisfaction. When com- bined, these it~ms predicted satisfaction more than any other. Salary was the next best predictor, followed by possession of academic rank. · CONCLUSION Academic librarians with faculty sta- tus and rank are more satisfied than other librarians (nonfaculty or hybrid groups). They have higher levels of over- all satisfaction and are more satisfied with many of the aspects of their posi- tions. Academic rank is a determining factor in job satisfaction. Rank is most often held by librarians with faculty sta- tus. Only 13.4 percent of librarians re- ported having rank but not faculty status . Librarians who feel more involved, consulted, informed, and more in control, are more satisfied. The key predictors of job satisfaction of academic librarians are perception of participation, salary, and possession of academic rank. Perception of participation appears to be the crucial factor in job satisfaction . The best predictors of satisfaction were the extent to which the librarians per- ceive that they are involved in library planning and decision making, con- sulted about factors directly relating to their job responsibilities and work en- vironment, informed about matters af- fecting the library, and in control of their own activities. · Librarians' perceptions of participa- tion are not the same as actual measures of their participation. Librarians with fa- culty status and rank perceive them- selves as more involved in library planning and decision making, more frequently consulted, better informed about matters affecting the library, and more involved in the university than nonfaculty or hybrid groups. Yet there are no differences in most categories of actual participation, such as amount of teaching, library and professional meet- ings attended, library association mem- bership, or types of meeting structures. The only differences are in greater in- volvement with the university and more regular meetings of the library pro- fessional staff. Presence of a formal library planning group, who served on it, and whether the recommendations were implemented, did not determine satisfaction. The model of library planning and decision making, ex- plicitly whether it provided a low or high degree of participation by the librarians, also did not determine satisfaction. There were no differences among the groups in any of the above categories. Although salary is less important than perception of participation, it is also a strong predictor of overall satisfaction. Findings on the relationship between in- come of academic librarians and satisfac- · tion have varied in the past. While Mirfakhraiconcludes there is no relation- ship, Chew found in an earlier study that income was related to satisfaction. 14•15 Librarians with faculty status and rank are more highly paid and have greater benefits than librarians in other groups. In general, academic librarians report above satisfactory levels of job satisfac- tion. Librarians are most satisfied with their relationships with library users and peers and with their assigned duties. They are least satisfied with their opportunities for promotion, other recognition for ac- complishments, and their salary. This sup- ports Mirfakhrai's findings that librarians were most satisfied with their relation- ships with coworkers and least satisfied with promotional opportunities.16 Mir- fakhrai suggests librarians be encouraged to have input in planning and policy to combat the deficiency of promotion op- portunities inherent in academic librari- anship and the perception of librarianship as a "dead-end job."17 He also found that experience and length of employment were negatively correlated with satisfac- tion, and suggested job rotation as a solu- tion to the routine nature of the academic librarian's position.18 This finding was not upheld in this study, where years as a librarian were positively correlated with overall satisfaction. In this study, it is obvious that faculty status and rank enhance the librarians' satisfaction with their jobs and percep- Job Satisfaction 265 tions of their participation. Librarians with faculty status and rank have more overall satisfaction than other librarians and are more satisfied with most aspects of their jobs, including salary, oppor- tunities for promotion or other advance- ment, and other recognition for accom- plishments, which are generally weak areas of satisfaction in the profession. Hose I' s theory of role-conflict resulting in reduced satisfaction levels for librari- ans with faculty status was not upheld in this research. Librarians with faculty status and rank have more overall satisfaction than other librarians and are more satisfied with most aspects of their jobs. The group with faculty status and rank contained significantly more librar- ians in advanced stages of their careers. In Group 3, 56 percent of the librarians had more than fifteen years of experience as a professional librarian, compared to 24 percent in Group 1 and 19 percent in Group 2. One interpretation is that librar- ians at this stage have advanced into the more desirable faculty positions. Faculty status and rank may offer a solution to the routine nature of the pro- fession. The expansion of one's respon- sibilities to include university-level involvement lends diversity and interest to the job. The opportunity for involvement in a changing array of academic, curricular, and personnel matters may help sustain the vitality and enthusiasm of librarians over the course of long careers. There was no relation found between department or service area and satisfac- tion. Some support was found for previous studies that hypothesize gender differ- ences in satisfaction. In this study, male librarians were significantly higher in the sum of all of the satisfaction items, one of the measures of overall satisfaction. Support for the Marchant study is am- biguous because the librarian's percep- tion of participation, rather than man- agement's style, was the key predictor of satisfaction. However, there was a corre- 266 College & Research Libraries lation between participative management style and satisfaction. Within thecontextof faculty status, perhaps it is the collegial relationship that fosters a sense of in- volvement and participation, rather than a recognized management style. While debate about faculty status for librarians is unlikely to diminish in inten- sity as universities and colleges are pres- sured economically, one aspect of the debate which has been overlooked is the satisfaction of the librarians. Although job May1993 satisfaction is not linked in literature to increased productivity, there is a variety of important positive effects which have been demonstrated. 19 These include positive effects on mental and physical health, longevity, and attitudes toward life and family. 20 The findings on job satisfaction re- ported in this study provide information useful to administrators and librarians in their discussions of faculty status and rank for academic librarians. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Harold V. Hosel,. "Academic Librarians and Faculty Status: A Role Stress-Job Satis- faction Perspective," Journal of Library Administration, 5 (Fall 1984): 57-66. 2. Hano Johannsen and G. Terry Page, International Dictionary.'of Management, 4th ed. (East Brunswick, N.J.: Nichols/GP Publishing, 1990), 218. 3. Maurice P. Marchant, The Effects of the Decision Making Process and Related Organizational Factors on Alternative Measures of Performance in University Libraries; A Dissertation. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1970), 261. 4. Dale Susan Bengston and Dorothy Shields, "A Test of Marchant's Predictive Formulas Involving Job Satisfaction," Journal of Academic Librarians/zip 11 (May 1985): 88-92. 5. Susanne P. Wahba, "Job Satisfaction of Librarians: A Comparison between Men and Women," College & Research Libraries 36 (Jan. 1975): 45-51; George P. D'Elia, "The Determinants of Job Satisfaction among Beginning Librarians," Library Quarterly 49, no.3 (1979): 283-302; Ilene F. Rockman, "Job Satisfaction among Faculty and Librarians: A Study of Gender, Autonomy, and Decision- Making Opportunities," Journal of Library Administration 5, no.3 (Fall 1984): 43-55. 6. Steven Seokho Chwe, "A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction: Catalogers and Reference Librarians in University Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 4, no.3 (1978): 139-43. 7. D'Elia, "Determinants of Job Satisfaction," 300. 8. Beverly P. Lynch and JoAnn Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: A Replication," Library Quarterly 57 (1987): 190-202. 9. Mohammed H. Mirfakhrai, "Correlates of Job Satisfaction among Academic Librarians in the United States," Journal of Library Administration14, no.l (1991): 117-31. 10. Leigh Estabrook, Chloe Bird, and Frederick L. Gilmore, "Job Satisfaction: Does Auto- mation Make a Difference?" Journal of Library Administration 13, nos.1, 2 (1990): 175-93. 11. Janet Krompart and Clara DiFelice, "A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971-1984," Journal of Academic Librarians/zip 13 (Mar. 1987): 14-18. 12. M. J. Norusis, SPSS Introductory Statistics: A Student Guide. (Chicago: SPSS, 1990), 321. 13. Norman H. Nie et al., SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), 427. 14. Mirfakhrai, "Correlates of Job Satisfaction," 123. 15. Chwe, "A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction," 143. 16. Mirfakhrai, "Correlates of Job Satisfaction," 127. 17. Ibid., 129. 18. Ibid., 125, 130. 19. Edwin A. Locke, "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1976) 1334 .. 20. Ibid. Job Satisfaction 267 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE ON JOB SATISFACilON, FACULTY STATUS, AND PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION This questionnaire is directed to full-time academic librarians. Please respond to each question below. Your contribution towards research in the area of job satisfaction of academic librarians is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be confidential. Return within two weeks to: Professor Bonnie Horenstein Adelphi University Garden City, NY 11530 BACKGROUND 1. Do you have faculty status? yes no 2. Do you have faculty rank? yes no 3. Do you work as a librarian full-time? yes no 4. Which of the following benefits are you eligible for? sabbaticals (paid or partly paid leaves) yes no tenure yes no research grants yes no 10-month work year or less yes no 5. If you are eligible for tenure, are all full-time librarians at your institution eligible for tenure? yes no 6. If eligible, do you have tenure? 7. If you have faculty status, do all librarians at your institution have faculty status? yes yes 8. Years as a professional librarian (include previous positions): 0-3 4-9 10-15 over 15 9. What is your present annual salary? no no __ under 25,000 __ 30,000-35,000 -25,000-30,000 - 35,000-40,000 - 40,000-45,000 __ over 45,000 10. What best describes the publication requirement for promotion, tenure or other advancement of librarians at your institution? __ no publication required __ publishing encouraged . __ some publication required __ substantial record of publication required __ other (please specify) 11. Your rank or status: Assistant Professor Associate Professor Instructor Professor ==Other (please specify) ---------- 12. Your department or service area: __ Acquisitions __ Cataloging __ Reference Serials __ Automated Systems __ Other (please specify) -------- 13. Your gender: male female 14. Your education (check as many as apply): __ M.L.S. __ Additional master's degree Ph.D. __ Other (please specify) ------------------ . 15. Your job title: 268 College & Research Libraries May1993 PARTICIPATION 16. Approximately how many hours do you teach per year (formal group instructional sessions such as bibliographic lectures, library tours, etc.)? none 1-5 6-15 16-30 31-45 over 45 17. Approximately how many hours per week do you attend meetings relating to the library? 0 1-2 3-5 more than 5 18. Approximately how many hours per week to you attend meetings relating to the university? 0 1-2 3-5 more than 5 19. In how many national, state, and/or local professional library associations are you currently a member? 0 1-3 more than 3 20. On the average how many professional meetings of national, state, and/ or local associations do you attend each year? 0 1-3 4-7 over 8 21. Which model of library planning and decision-making best describes your library? __ little or no participation by librarians some consultation with librarians __ meaningful consultation with librarians __ high degree of participation by librarians none of the above 22. Does your library have regular meetings of the professional staff? __ yes no 23. Is there a library planning group, council, or other formal group that deals with academic matters of the library? __ yes no 24. If so, who serves on the planning group or council? __ librarians only __ mostly librarians and some administrators __ mostly administrators and some librarians __ administrators only (such as department heads group) __ other (please specify) 25. Are recommendations or decisions of the planning group generally implemented? ___ yes no __ not applicable TO WHAT EXTENT? Please circle one response below. Not at Moder- To a high all Little ately degree 26. ... do you feel you are involved in library planning and decision-making? 1 2 3 4 27. ... do you feel you are consulted about factors directly related to your job responsibilities or work environment? 1 2 3 4 28. ... do you feel you are informed by your administration about matters affecting the library? 1 2 3 4 Job Satisfaction 269 Not at Moder- To a high all Little ately degree 29. ... do you feel you exercise control over your day-to-day professional activities? 1 2 3 4 30. ... do you participate in institutional academic affairs (university senate, university committees, other university governance structures)? 1 2 3 4 31. ... do you participate in library professional activities beyond your immediate institution? 1 2 3 4 32. .... has technology changed your job responsibilities? 1 2 3 4 SATISFACTION How satisfied are you with each of the folloWing .aspects of your current position? Please circle the most correct response. Unsatis- Sa tis- Highly factory factory Satisfactory 33. Assigned duties 1 2 3 4 5 34. Working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 35. Workload 1 2 3 4 5 36. Management's style 1 2 3 4 5 37. Relationship with peers 1 2 3 4 5 38. Relationship with library administration 1 2 3 4 5 39. Relationship with university administration 1 2 3 4 5 40. Relationship with library users 1 2 3 4 5 41. Status of librarians at your institution 1 2 3 4 5 42. Salary 1 2 3 4 5 43. Benefits (work year, tenure, tuition waiver, sabbaticals, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 44. Opportunities for promotion or other advancement 1 2 3 4 5 45. Other recognition for accomplishments 1 2 3 4 5 46. Opportunities to participate in library planning and decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 47. Opportunities for university participation 1 2 3 4 5 48. Opportunities for professional participation 1 2 3 4 5 49. Opportunities for challenge or creativity 1 2 3 4 5 ' 50. Opportunities for independence 1 2 3 4 5 51. Opportunities to use your abilities, education, training 1 2 3 4 5 52. Opportunities to use your own judgment 1 2 3 4 5 53. Opportunities for variety in your job 1 2 3 4 5 54. Overall satisfaction with your job 1 2 3 4 5 55. Your comments (attach a sheet as needed) : Recent CLIPpings eones• u'brarY lnforli'Ation Pad coiled data and IOJl\ple dOCUJ1'enll for -by ,._ cuP NoteS""'~ by the College ubfaries Section. IDIBUbrarf LoaD ID Colle&" J:JbrOrieL cuP Nole f\6, ctJifllli/Bl by RoXDflll BustoS· $34.50; ACltL .,...t>e' $28.75 1411P. ().8389-7651-l 1993 Databose s-rcbiD' ID Co1k&" I..llJnli. ().8389-7651-4 1993 AUdiovisual Polidd ID eooe&e 1JbrOrieL cuP No!t 4114, ctJffllliWl by Kristint BrtJIICOUni· $21.95; ACltL .,...mer $18.65 1$2p. ()-11389-7495-3 1991 Colle&e Ubr8f1 NewsJei!SL cuP Nole f\3, t:tJIIII1ik4 by p..,;ci4 Smilh B.u:"'' .,.. s..,.,. McCQif/ry c,.U. $18.65; ACltL -ber $15.35 154P- ()-11389-7445-7 1990 ~A~ ID ~ Ubrariel- cuP- tl'l. cOJJf!'iiBl by /lDif>OT'l WUJlmiiS Jedd~U ..W0 ,_ ""'"''"" tl MIJT'J L. $18.64; ACltL -be< $15.35 12.Sp. ()-11389-7444-9 1990 smaJis. eoue