Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A DIAGNOSTIC EXPLORATION OF CAMPUS RECREATION USING THE WORK
DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree
Master of SCIENCE
by
Shannon N. D. Dere, B.S.
San Marcos, Texas August 2011
A DIAGNOSTIC EXPLORATION OF CAMPUS RECREATION USING THE WORK
DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE
Committee Members Approved:
_______________________
Dr. Stephen Awoniyi, Chair
_______________________
Dr. Michal Anne Lord
_______________________
Dr. Tinker Murray
_______________________
Marc Turner
Approved:
_______________________
J. Michael Willoughby
Dean of the Graduate College
COPYRIGHT
by
Shannon N. D. Dere
2011
FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT
Fair Use
This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed.
Duplication Permission
As the copyright holder of this work I, Shannon N. D. Dere, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people that I would like to thank for their time, dedication,
and support in helping me complete my thesis. First off, I would like to thank my
thesis committee: Dr. Awoniyi, Dr. Lord, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Turner. Without their
input and assistance this thesis would not be possible. I would also like to thank my
family for their continual support while I completed my master’s degree.
This manuscript was submitted on May 11, 2011.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... xiii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
College Students at Work ............................................................................. 1
Campus Recreation and Student Employment .............................................. 1
Purpose of Study ........................................................................................... 2
Research Question ........................................................................................ 3
Significance of Study .................................................................................... 3
Assumptions ................................................................................................. 4
Delimitations ................................................................................................. 5
Limitations .................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 6
Summary ....................................................................................................... 7
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................. 8
Section I: College Students ............................................................................ 8
College Students: Characteristics .................................................... 8
College Students and Work ............................................................. 12
Academic Performance ................................................................... 13
Section II: Work Design ............................................................................... 15
Student Employees and Performance at Work ................................ 16
The Construct of Motivation ........................................................... 17
Beyond Motivational Factors: A Social Dimension ........................ 20
Beyond Motivational Factors: A Work Context ............................. 21
Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) ............................................... 22
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 24
vii
III. METHODS ......................................................................................................... 26
Purpose of Study ........................................................................................... 26
Objective ....................................................................................................... 26
Work Design Questionnaire ............................................................ 27
Respondents ................................................................................... 28
Procedures ...................................................................................... 28
Data Analysis ................................................................................. 28
Summary ..................................................................................................... 29
IV. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ............................................................................... 30
Sample .......................................................................................................... 30
Demographics ............................................................................................... 30
Results .......................................................................................................... 33
Motivational-Task Characteristics ................................................ 35
Motivational-Knowledge Characteristics ...................................... 35
Social Characteristics .................................................................... 36
Work Context ................................................................................ 36
Speculation/Conclusion ................................................................................ 36
V. DIAGNOSIS OF CAMPUS RECREATION: DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 39
Summary of Study ........................................................................................ 39
Summary of Results ...................................................................................... 39
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 40
Work Scheduling Autonomy ......................................................... 41
Decision-Making Autonomy ......................................................... 41
Task Identity ................................................................................. 42
Job Complexity ............................................................................. 42
Information Processing ................................................................. 43
Skill Variety .................................................................................. 44
Initiated Interdependence ............................................................. 45
Interaction Outside Organization .................................................. 45
Work Conditions ........................................................................... 46
Equipment Use .............................................................................. 47
Limitations .................................................................................................... 48
Recommendations ......................................................................................... 49
Recommendations for Future Studies ........................................................... 50
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 51
APPENDEX A: ONLINE WORK DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................... 54
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 64
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Participant Ages ................................................................................................................ 31
2. Employment Positions ...................................................................................................... 32
3. Mean and Standard Deviation Results of WDQS ............................................................. 34
ix
ABSTRACT
A DIAGNOSTIC EXPLORATION OF CAMPUS RECREATION USING THE WORK
DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE
SHANNON N. D. DERE
by
Shannon N. D. Dere
Texas State University-San Marcos
August 2011
THESIS CHAIR: STEVE AWONIYI
The purpose of this study is to explore work design in campus recreation. In
particular, the focus is on student employee work roles. The Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ) is the instrument used for diagnosis.
Student employees are a key component to the successful operations of
campus recreation facilities and programs. Understanding student employees’
perspectives and experiences of different facets of work design is crucial for
professionals in campus recreation in order to develop their student staff into
effective employees. An online questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to 423
campus recreation directors from all 50 states. Through the student employees’
responses conclusions were drawn to the areas of work design campus recreation
x
professionals should focus on in developing both the student employees and the
design of the latter’s work. Recommendations from this study include strategies
professionals should utilize when managing student employees and how future
studies could be designed.
Keywords: work design, campus recreation, college students, motivation
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
College Students at Work
Employment amongst college students is an important aspect of the student
college experience (Watson & Hassett, 2005; Holmes, 2008; Richardson, Evans, &
Gbadamosi, 2009). According to the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, approximately 68% of students attending college hold some sort of
part-time work for pay (as cited in Pike, Kuh, & Massa-McKinley, 2008). With over
12 million young adults enrolled in colleges and universities across the United
States (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010)1, the number of students engaged in some
form of employment is large. These students work for a variety of reasons, in
different places and hold different types of jobs. This study will examine student
employment specifically in the campus recreation setting.
Campus Recreation and Student Employment
Students engage in a variety of forms of physical activity on university
campuses. Universities across the nation recognize this popular practice and
attempt to accommodate it through the provision of campus recreation programs.
Typically, campus recreation is a division of the university that devotes space and
resources to enable students to participate in a variety of activities ranging from
informal recreation to intramural sports to outdoor adventure programs. Campus
recreation allows students to have a choice in the activities they pursue and, in
addition, offers them a variety of opportunities for personal development.
1 Statistic reflects enrollment level as of October, 2009.
2
In order for universities to operate campus recreation programs, both full-
time and part-time employees are needed. Many colleges rely on several full-time
professionals as programmers while the daily operation of facilities and programs
housed under campus recreation are run by part-time college student employees.
Campus recreation professionals realize the valuable role that student employees
play in this setting.
Gaskins (1996) recognized the importance of these employees when he
stated that “the area of student employment is essential to the successful operation
of a collegiate recreational sports program” (para. 1). Without student employees,
campus recreation programs might find it more difficult to operate. If positive work
characteristics and outcomes, such as internal work motivation, satisfaction and
positive performance (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) are none existent
for these student employees, the department will find it more difficult to be
successful. It is important for professionals in the campus recreation field not only
to understand the programming needs of students who attend their university, but
to also understand the needs of the student employee population that runs their
campus recreation programs.
Purpose of Study
The question of work design has been of interest to both researchers and
managers for a long time. Work design is a form of intervention that, both
conceptually and practically, examines factors surrounding work, and defines,
3
analyzes and restructures them in order to maintain effective work performance or
achieve improvement. The present study will apply the Work Design Questionnaire
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) to evaluate campus recreation student employment
as a diagnostic tool in order to describe campus recreation student employee
perceptions of their jobs and, perhaps, identify areas needing improvement.
The study’s objective may then be described as follows:
Diagnosis of campus recreation student employment using the Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ) as a diagnostic tool. Responses provided by participants will
be used as a basis to propose redesign of work.
Research Question
Following the objective, the following primary question may be stated:
How or in what ways can work for student employees in campus recreation
be re-designed, based on the employees’ assessment of the current state of work as
indicated by their responses on the Work Design Questionnaire?
Significance of Study
The National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) is a
national governing body for campus recreation programs. NIRSA’s mission is to
“provide for the education and development of professional and student members
and to foster quality recreational programs, facilities and services for diverse
populations” (2010, para. 1). NIRSA advocates the pursuit of its goals through
utilization of resources that “promote ethical and healthy lifestyle choices” (NIRSA,
2010, para. 1).
4
In a study commissioned by NIRSA to determine the participation rate of
students in campus recreation programs, researchers found that 75% of all college
students participate in these programs (NIRSA, 2004). The authors also found a
strong correlation between the participation in campus recreation programs and
with the overall satisfaction and success of college students (NIRSA, 2004).
It is beneficial to maintain the presence and effectiveness of campus
recreation programs. One of the ways to accomplish this is through examination of
its operations, and that includes management of its staff.
The current study is also significant for a second reason. As stated above, the
number of students engaged in gainful employment is large. Although not all
students who are employed work in campus recreation, campus recreation
departments typically hire the highest number of students compared to any other
department on campus. With such a potentially large population of student
employees, the relevance of a study like this is significant, especially for campus
recreation professionals.
Finally, students enroll in colleges and universities primarily for academic
education. When they have to work, they face the challenge of juggling academics
and employment among other things. It is beneficial to examine issues that impact
on the well-being of this aspiring group and their work experience is one of those
issues.
Assumptions
1. The range of possible student employment roles in campus recreation
presents a challenge in creating one assessment tool that fits all roles closely. It is
5
assumed, however, that it is possible for the assessment instrument used be
relevant enough such that findings from responses by a set of employees that are
employed in (within) the same role are theoretically and practically useful.
2. Following the above, while respondents in the present study will be
employed in different roles within campus recreation, it is assumed that there is
enough similarity between the roles to make findings of a universalized instrument
reasonable enough for practical use and general analyses across roles as well.
3. The sample of respondents is not controlled—self-selected convenient
sample is used; it is not truly random. It is assumed, however, that the range of
respondents that will be represented in a broad-based (Internet) survey will afford
enough between-roles variance2 in the data to be able to detect some peculiarities
that pertain to each role and thus enable an assessment on the role.
Delimitations
1. The WDQ is a general tool that was created with the intention of looking at
work design in full-time employees. For this research it is a possibility that the WDQ
will not fit every situation perfectly.
2. The current study is limited to exploratory or preliminary investigations as
the WDQ has not been applied to student employees in campus recreation before.
Future confirmatory work may be required to support the conclusions made for
professionals in campus recreation.
2 Variance (as a result of variability) may be re-conceptualized here in terms of diverse
representation.
6
Limitations
1. Job titles/responsibilities in campus recreation are very diversified. The
current study is, as far as known, a first exploratory application of the WDQ to
campus recreation and, therefore, engages in descriptive, rather than rigorous role-
segmented, analysis.
2. Complications of non-equivalence across universities in terms of roles
offered may result from such things as geographic location (and, consequently, the
types of programs offered), private-public status (impacting on resources the
university can provide) and etcetera.
3. Self-selection may introduce bias in the sample of respondents.
Definitions of Terms
Campus recreation: A department or program on a college or university campus,
which offers a variety of recreation programming for students and members.
College student: Any student attending a higher education institution. Many are
between the ages of 18 and 24.
Millennial: Person born between the years 1982 and 2000 (Raines, 2002; Howe &
Strauss, 2000).
Motivation: “An internal drive that activates behavior and gives it direction”
(Anderson, Griego, & Stevens, 2010, p. 74).
Work Design: “How jobs, tasks, and roles are structured, enacted, and modified, as
well as the impact of these structures, enactments, and modifications on individual,
group, and organizational outcomes” (Grant & Parker, 2009, p. 319).
7
Summary
College students widely seek and gain employment. College students are also
active in physical activity on campus. Campus recreation is an institutional program
that meets the needs of students in both areas. This study is intended to examine
work design issues surrounding student employment in campus recreation.
As stated above, the objective of this study is as follows:
Diagnosis of campus recreation student employment.
It is useful to re-state and emphasize the exploratory character of the current
project. Future confirmatory work may be required, for instance, with regard to the
work context dimension as explored in this study. The fact should not be
overlooked, however, that though exploratory, elements of the model around which
this study has been structured are grounded in past empirical research, and, hence,
are not hypothetical. Therefore, it is hoped that the information collected will be
applicable to real-life. The ultimate pragmatic goal is improvement of work
performance through improvement of design of work for student employees of
campus recreation and, most likely, other staff members as well. At the same time,
however, such information can be a source of contribution to the general
elaboration of theory and, thus, can become a basis for extension of the body of
knowledge. As is the case, elaboration lends new insights to our ability to further
explore concepts and processes beyond what currently exists.
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Section I: College Students
College Students: Characteristics
College students, typically ranging from the age of 18 to 24, are a cohort with
various identifying and unique characteristics. Some people refer to those who fall
in this age group today as Millennials or Generation Y2 (Milliron, 2008). The years
between 1982 and 2000 are generally accepted dates for when Millennials were
born (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Ramsborg, Miller, Breiter, Reed, & Rushing, 2006;
Rawlins, Indvik, & Johnson, 2008). Roughly 75 million young adults make up the
Millennial generation and are considered to be the second largest generation
currently in the workforce (Smith & Clark, 2010).
According to the United States Census Bureau’s findings for school
enrollment in 2008, 79% of males ages 15 to 24 and 74% of women ages 15 through
24 are enrolled in some level of college. Looking at racial demographics, 67% of 15
to 24 year-olds enrolled in college are White, 13% are Black, 11% are Hispanic, and
7% are Asian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). These numbers show some diversity
among the college student population.
College-aged students have many unique characteristics. Some of their
defining qualities are associated with technology, education, diversity, civic- 2 These terms may be seen as particular to this point in calendar or historical time.
9
mindedness, and work expectations. College-aged students are considered to be a
technologically-adept age group (Rawlins, Indvik, Johnson, 2008). This proficiency
with technology could be attributed to the great number of hours these students
spent as children playing with video games (Brandt, 2008). Perhaps, as a result of
their comfort with technology, particularly computers and the Internet, college-aged
students may prefer to communicate with their peers via e-mail, chatting, and video
teleconferencing as opposed to in-person interaction (Raines, 2002). The constant
connection to the World Wide Web and to people through cellular phones and
personal and relatively inexpensive computers allows for these students not only to
be connected to parents and friends, but also to be regularly updated on all issues
local and global (Eisner, 2005). Martin (as cited in Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008) found
that through technology this cohort has learned new ways to process and discover
information, which is prevalent in the university setting. College-aged students are
so comfortable with technology and have a large amount of purchasing power that
the media and advertisers are playing on these strengths to market products,
specifically those related to technology, to the cohort (Noble, Haytko & Phillips,
2009).
Shaw and Fairhurst (2008) found that college-aged students require
structure in both their classroom as well in the infrastructure of the university. Need
for structure may be due to “the type of parenting they have received” (p. 368). One
way that it manifests itself in their current life, the authors assert, is in a desire for
clear directions and some degree of support at work.
10
Although the majority of college-aged students are attending universities,
researchers are discovering that this cohort is not necessarily the most skilled,
specifically in reading and writing. Students today score similar on proficiency
exams to students in the early 1970s even though the latter had much lower grade
point averages and were less likely to attend college (Milliron, 2008). A study
conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts in 2007 reported that two-thirds
of this age group lack active reading habits (as cited in Milliron, 2008), which might
account for the lack of skill. Additional studies are finding that multi-tasking, a
characteristic of college-aged students, may be contributing to lower skills in this
group (Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). Foehr (as cited in Milliron, 2008) concluded that
the ability of this generation to complete multiple tasks at one time, such as
homework and surfing the Internet, is proving problematic due to the fact that the
brain’s concentration and retention capacity is compromised once an additional
activity is introduced (Just, Carpenter, Keller, Emery, Zajac, & Thulborn, 2001, as
cited in Milliron, 2008). Overall, college students are entering college with weak
skills and also graduate with weak functional skills even though this cohort is more
likely to attain a higher level of education than previous groups (Milliron, 2008).
Today’s college students belong to a more diversified population and have a
more civic-minded orientation compared to students of the past. With regard to
diversity, today’s college-aged students have grown up in a society where racial,
sexual, and cultural diversification is present and diversity is readily accepted
(Raines, 2002; Eisner, 2005). College-aged students are also much more likely to
volunteer in today’s society compared to previous generations (Wright, as cited in
11
Burns, Reid, Toncar, Anderson, & Wells, 2008). Volunteerism has risen 12% in the
last decade (Fegenbush, 2001, as cited in Burns, et al., 2008). This high level of social
consciousness (Raines, 2002; Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008) may be due to several
reasons. One view is that with the help of an easily accessible Internet, college
students have grown up learning of adversity both in the United States and across
the globe including economic hardship, war, terrorism, kidnappings and murders,
etcetera (Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). One way for these students to counteract these
difficult events is through a stronger connection with family, friends, and the
community (Burns et al., 2008; Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). Another idea is that this
cohort strives to live a better life, and not just in the materialistic sense. One way to
accomplish this is by improving the social and structural context that surrounds
them (Burns et al.). A possible contradiction of the idea of social consciousness,
however, may be related to work: although volunteerism has increased, one
suggested motivation for engagement was described as enhancement and
development of one’s career (Burns et al.).
One of the most defining characteristics of this cohort is their set of desires
regarding their employment. Although they are more excited to enter the work force
than previous generations (Messmer, 2008), current college-aged students have
several demands from their employers that will make managing this group
challenging (Eisner, 2005). With regard to their paycheck, they automatically expect
good pay—in addition to desiring a powerful title even before putting in adequate
time (Eisner, 2005; Ng, Schwietzer & Lyons, 2010). In a study conducted by Rawlins,
Indvik, and Johnson (2008), the authors found that 73.4% of respondents believed
12
that their salary was a “non-negotiable” at the base level. This attitude towards pay
characterizes this group’s mentality about things: “want it all” and “want it now”
(Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010, p. 282). In addition to good pay, college-aged
students also want to secure their future with strong healthcare benefits (Messmer,
2008).
In one study, 73% of college-aged students said that they are concerned
about their work-life balance (Messmer, 2008). College students believe that in
order to achieve this balance between work and personal life a strict work week
with hours ranging no more than 40 hours per week, no overtime or “on-call” shifts,
and no night and weekend shifts are desired (Rawlins, Indvik, & Johnson, 2008). The
group also wants flexibility that allows it to combine personal and work lives by
staying connected to friends and family while on the clock (Rawlins, Indvik, &
Johnson, 2008). This ties into the cohort’s desire for a nurturing work environment
where close relationships with coworkers and supervisors, either in a personal or
work setting, is appreciated (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Desire for a nurturing
work environment may have stemmed from the group’s upbringing, where parents
held their hand every step of the way and teachers coddled them (Raines, 2002).
These characteristics of college students will challenge supervisors to constantly
redesign the work environment to accommodate the incoming employee.
College Students and Work
Students work for a variety of reasons. Research has concluded that some
hold employment to earn money for their schooling. Others work to pay for basic
needs. Students also work to earn money to support their social life (Manthei, &
13
Gilmore, 2005; Richardson, Evans, & Gbadamosi, 2009). Specifically, in the study by
Richardson, Evans and Gbadamosi (2009), 81.4% of the respondents gained
employment to fund their social life, compared with only 52.1%, who took
employment for the purpose of gaining experience that supported their education.
In another study, Broadbridge and Swanson (2005) found that students had a desire
to earn extra money in order to keep up with a desired lifestyle and peer pressure.
There are other possible concurrent or antecedent reasons why students
work. Researchers in general have found that reasons for seeking employment,
among others, include federal cutbacks in financial assistance, rise in tuition costs
and a decrease in financial assistance from parents (Manthei & Gilmore, 2005). The
financial deficit caused by these circumstances often leads to many students having
to work or take out loans, which sometimes end up being difficult to manage
(Ehrenberg & Sherman, 1986; Royal, 2001; Manthei & Gilmore, 2005; Richardson,
Evans, & Gbadamosi, 2009). Manthei and Gilmore (2005) found that approximately
76% of students claim to have a substantial student loan. In the United Kingdom,
Holmes (2008) found that most respondents alluded to basic living costs as the
main reason for employment and only two percent of respondents cited education
fees as the primary reason for working.
Academic Performance
Before concluding this section on the college student employee, a brief
discussion will be presented on issues that are unique to students and may have
direct or indirect impact on work. Though briefly treated here, it is important
because it is a condition that defines being a student: academics. The overarching
17
purpose of being in the university is to engage in academics. Therefore, much of
what defines the student in terms of choices and behaviors might be relatable. The
suggestion is that work performance may sometimes be framed by this first
condition.
There is some debate amongst researchers about the relationship between work
and academic performance. Bradley (2006), for instance, found that working
students have a grade point average (GPA) that is only slightly lower than that of
non-working students. Overall, Bradley concluded that there is little support for the
claim that working students tend to have a GPA that is inferior to that of non-
working students. In a finding—which may or may not be contradictory to
Bradley’s—Curtis and Williams (2002), in a poll of working students, found that
83% of their respondents believed that holding a job detracted from their studies.
These same respondents were questioned whether or not they believed that having
a part-time job helped them in academics. On the question, 22% believed that
holding a job assisted them in their academics while 76% did not agree (2002).
A study by Broadbridge and Swanson (2005) suggests that observed mixed
results may be dependent on the period during which the student is employed (and
upon which the response is based). They found that students gave precedence to
coursework over paid work during the academic term, while the priority is reversed
during vacation time. Nevertheless, they suggested that negative effects tend to
outweigh the positive. Negative effects of employment during the school term
include less time available for study, tiredness, missing lectures and emergence of
other time management issues. By these observations there is perceived conflict
15
with practices that may normally enhance educational attainment and working
students might tend not to get the most out of university life. The point to be made
regarding all the above is that if a student employee perceives that work creates
conflict with academics, the precipitated attitude might influence how that students
performs on the job.
It is relevant to mention the perspectives of some campus professionals who
interact with students. Curtis (2003) discovered that some people in academia view
employment during the scholastic year negatively because they believe that jobs
prohibit students from their studies. Continuing, Curtis ascertained that many
teachers feel helpless in assisting students balance work and academic life due to
lack of available time and poor training in how to handle students in this situation.
In a later study, Curtis (2005) also found that staff on college campuses are not
aware of the difficulties that students face when they attempt to manage the
combined role of student and employee.
Section II: Work Design
The foregoing discussion describes some things that may drive students to
work, but it also begins to discuss some of the things that may influence
performance of work. The latter is the broad subject of this study. It is important to
understand what motivates an employee, once employed, to perform well on the
job. Motivation in the work force is thus an important subject for managers
supervising employees.
16
Student Employees and Performance at Work
As with a variety of motivations to engage in work, a variety of reasons can
also be suggested that motivate students to perform better at work. Pack, Jordan,
Turner and Haines (2007) found that employers are more likely to create positive
work experiences when they treat their employees fairly. According to the
researchers, the more supportive the organization is to employees, the greater is the
job satisfaction felt by the employee. Satisfaction is known to be positively related to
motivational characteristics at work (Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007). In
terms of student employees on a college campus, Gaskins (1996) noted that
students change positions frequently and their positions are so temporary that
these employees do not have enough time to become attached to a department and
thus are difficult to motivate properly. Given the findings above about creating a
positive work experience, it appears as if a basic step, such as institutional support,
can help student employees cope with employment and, hopefully, perform better.
Turner, Jordan, and DuBord (2005) concluded from an investigation that, if
supervised by a professional staff member, student employees demonstrated a
higher level of commitment as compared to their peers who were supervised by
another peer. A study completed by Dere (2009) at a university in the southwestern
United States revealed another observation in relation to student employees and
their supervisors: student employees in the study stated that they found it
important to be able to have an opportunity to approach their supervisors and
discuss work-related matters. That kind of work environment, it appears, facilitates
student work. Other findings in Dere’s study indicated a range of other factors that
17
affect student motivation on the job. Some of those include the following: self-
esteem needs, social needs, self-actualization needs, identity with the organization,
and less supervisor control.
The Construct of Motivation
The question of motivation at work has been well researched (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Motivation is a
complex construct. It has been defined as, “an internal drive that activates behavior
and gives it direction” (Anderson, Greigo, & Stevens, 2010, p. 74). Motivation, it is
said, “is a reason or set of reasons for engaging in a particular behavior” (Anderson,
Griego, & Stevens, 2010, p. 74). In other words, motivation is the drive one uses to
attain certain goals and the process one engages in to maintain that drive (Lee,
2010). Therefore, work motivation is the drive that instigates one to complete one’s
job duties and assignments during employment. Achievement motivation, a term
commonly found when discussing the work force, looks at the internal drive that
enables people to pursue work they see as valuable (Lee, 2010).
Over the past century many researchers have developed theories relating to
motivation. Some of them have undergone more scrutiny than others. As the subject
of motivation is continually being studied, new theories and ideas relating to the
topic are being constantly updated and reviewed. Some earlier theories include
Theory X and Y, the Motivator-Hygiene Theory, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
(Sanzotta, 1977; Mauer, 2010; Zhang, 2010; Tillman, Smith, & Tillman, 2010;
Fichter, 2011). Other less-widely known and outdated theories include the Drive
18
Theory, Reinforcement Theory, and Subconscious Motives Theory (Sanzotta, 1977;
O’Neil & Drillings, 1994) .
Theory X and Y, developed by Douglas McGregor in the early 1960s, for
instance, dealt with two very different management styles (Sanzotta, 1977; Mauer,
2010). In Theory X managers epitomized micromanagement and are portrayed as
an authority or power that controlled their employees’ actions and behavior to
better fit the organization because the employees are incapable of doing the job on
their own (Miller, 1993a; Mauer, 2010). Operationally, there is no trust or respect
between employer and employee, therefore managers must constantly coerce
productivity out of employees. This style can be compared to an autocratic style of
management. Theory Y, on the other hand, gives credit to employees as motivating
themselves to be productive (Sanzotta, 1977). McGregor expressed that Theory Y
managers understand that physical and mental effort in work is just as natural as
play and rest (Mauer, 2010), meaning that work comes naturally to employees and
there is no need for micromanaging. These two theories are considered outdated by
some researchers who see it as somewhat simplistic in terms of what is now
understood about motivating employees.
Developed by psychologist Frederick Herzberg in 1959, the Motivator-
Hygiene Theory looks at internal and external motivators with regard to job
satisfaction (Fichter, 2011). In his theory, Herzberg believed that certain factors in
the workplace, such as work environment and other external or job context factors,
lead employees to become either satisfied or dissatisfied with their job (Sanzotta,
1977; Tillman, Smith, & Tillman, 2010). These factors comprise the hygiene portion
19
of the theory (Fichter, 2011). Hygiene factors can also be related to experiences with
such things as company policy, salary, job security, working conditions, and the like
(Sachau, 2007, as cited in Tillman, Smith, & Tillman, 2010). Herzberg concluded that
these hygiene factors generally do not satisfy people for extended periods of time,
but they do help prevent employees from becoming dissatisfied (Tillman, Smith, &
Tillman, 2010). The other half of the theory deals with the motivators in the job
itself. These motivators are directly linked to job content (Tillman, Smith, & Tillman,
2010). Herzberg’s biggest conclusion regarding job satisfaction is that he believed
job satisfaction is not the opposite of job dissatisfaction, rather, job satisfaction is
the opposite of no job satisfaction and vice versa (Tillman, Smith, & Tillman, 2010).
Like Theory X or Y, the Motivator-Hygiene Theory does not fully describe the nature
of motivation in the workplace. What is of interest to this study, however, is its two
dimensions, which are also realized in the model upon which this study is based:
motivation and work context. Both are essential considerations in examination of
work performance.
In his Hierarchy of Needs model, Abraham Maslow expresses that humans
are complex beings with multiple levels of need (Sanzotta, 1977). These needs are
broken down into five categories: “Basic needs or Physiological Needs; Safety Needs:
Security, Order, and Stability; Need for Love and Belonging; Need for Esteem; and
Need for Actualization” (Zhang, 2010, p. 181). The overall theory is based on three
assumptions: 1) People have a will to survive and this drive influences their
behavior; 2) this hierarchy of needs is based in the order of need; and 3) higher level
needs can only be met if the lower need is satisfied (Sanzotta, 1977; Zhang, 2010). In
20
relation to work motives, it can be concluded that the job itself (e.g., salary, security,
stability) meets a certain portion of the lower level of needs while satisfaction in the
job will allow employees to reach the higher levels of need with the ultimate goal of
reaching self-actualization needs. Employers, therefore, should create a work
environment that allows employees to surpass the basic needs and reach the
highest needs.
More recent research has revealed the great complexity of the construct of
motivation. Work environment researchers have hypothesized that a multitude of
motivational factors that impact work outcome include the following: autonomy,
skill variety, task variety, task significance, task identity, job complexity, information
processing, and problem solving Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006 ; (Humphrey,
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) These factors combine to frame the nature of
performance of work.
Beyond Motivational Factors: A Social Dimension
The construct of motivation, a necessary factor in work performance, has
been introduced above. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) argue that an important
component of work performance that has been studied less is the social dimension
(or, as the authors put it, a combination of the interpersonal and social). In fact, as
they state, employees see the social component as “a major aspect of work” (p.
1323). Grant and Parker (2009) present an extended exploration of the relational
perspective of work design—a point of view that examines how work roles are
socially embedded. These researchers’ arguments make sense and, even in the
discussions already presented above, the social dimension of work is already self-
21
evident. For instance, above, (see Section I of this chapter), the social dimension
emerged in relation to technology. It was expressed that, for present-day college-
aged students, constant connection to the World Wide Web and to friends, family
and other people through mobile devices tends to encroach into time spent during
work. In a second allusion to social influences, it was suggested that the cohort
desires a nurturing work environment that involves close relationships with
coworkers and supervisors—a possible extension of nurture stemming from family
life. Third, in the study by Dere (2009), student employees were found to consider it
important to be able to approach their supervisors in dealing with issues pertaining
to work. It seems apparent, therefore, that the social dimension is an important one
for work across the population generally (according to Morgeson and Humphrey,
2006) and among college student employees specifically. The social dimension is
significant for several reasons, according to Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson
(2007). Three are presented here, amongst others. First, social interactions impact
well-being at work since they are associated with positive mood (for instance, social
activity generates such things as enthusiasm and energy). Second, interactions that
result from job interdependence enhance role perception because contact provides
opportunity among people to communicate what each role requires. Third, work-
related interactions within and outside the organization provide opportunities for
feedback and advice on tasks being performed.
Beyond Motivational Factors: Work Context
Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson (2007) add a third dimension of work:
the context. This includes several context characteristics: physical demands,
22
ergonomics, work conditions and, in an earlier model, equipment use (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006). Physical demand refers to the level of physical effort needed to
complete tasks and may involve such things as strength and endurance. Work
condition describes environmental aspects, such as temperature, noise, cleanliness,
etcetera. Equipment use represents the range of tools that are employed in carrying
out tasks and have a role to play through variety and complexity. Ergonomics, as
employed by the authors, refers mainly to matters of posture and movement.3
Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ)
The three factors that affect work performance described above—
motivation, social and work context—have been introduced because they form the
three primary components of the work design model presented by Humphrey,
Nahrgang and Morgeson (2007). The model also describes the Work Design
Questionnaire developed by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Work design,
according to Grant and Parker (2009), “describes how jobs, tasks, and roles are
structured, enacted, and modified, as well as the impact of these structures,
enactments and modifications on individual, group, and organizational outcomes”
(p. 319). In the WDQ, Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) employ motivational, social
and work context characteristics as components of a tool that can be used both for
work diagnosis in order to be able to effectively carry out work redesign and for
research and evaluation activities, which assess effectiveness of redesigned work.
3 Note that the current field of ergonomics is broad and may, in fact, include elements of
all the work context characteristics presented here. According to the International
Ergonomics Association, ergonomics is concerned with “understanding of the
interactions among humans and other elements of a system” within which the human is
operating (Karkowski, 2006, p. 4). Broadly, the discipline focusses on such things as
theory, practice, management, design, philosophy and environment (Karkowski, 2006).
23
The motivational component of the model is divided into two major sub-sections:
task characteristics (includes autonomy, task variety, task significance, task identity
and feedback from job) and knowledge characteristics (job complexity, information
processing, problem solving, skill variety and specialization). The social component
is made up social characteristics, which include social support, interdependence,
interaction outside the organization, and feedback from others. Finally, the work
context characteristics include ergonomics, physical demands, work conditions and
equipment use. The authors argued that a tool, such as the WDQ, which scrutinizes
work with a wide range of job characteristics, provides more flexibility or less
restriction in making work design decisions. Thus the tool allows both large and
fine-grained changes to be possible in work design depending on the manager’s
need.
Many scholars have assumed that work design, in its fundamental sense,
cannot be expanded on further since the fundamental questions have been
answered. Grant and Parker (2009) are finding emerging evidence to the contrary
and have concluded that work design is, in fact, undergoing a unique transformation
as the dimensions of the present-day workplace are also changing. The authors
argue that two viewpoints on work design have emerged: relational perspectives
and proactive perspectives. With relational perspectives, the role of
interdependencies and interpersonal interactions in work are given more
prominence in work design (2009). Proactive perspectives look at the concept that
employees can form their own job designs and work contexts through initiatives as
well as by examining how initiatives can be facilitated in work contexts and job
24
designs (2009). The emergence of these two new perspectives allows for the study
of work design to be more comprehensive. In the author’s current study, these two
perspectives are highly valuable because the subjects of study are college students.
As explored in the literature review above, college-aged students often display
characteristics that fit these two perspectives. Research is telling us that college-
aged students feed off of relationships and strong social interactions, even if these
associations occur with the help of technology. These young adults also believe that
they should have a definite say in their working conditions. By adding both of these
perspectives to the work design questionnaire, the researchers can see how the
relational and proactive perspectives are being perceived in the workplace.
Conclusion
In the campus recreation setting, student employees are a vital component to
the successful operation of a program and at the same time can be difficult to
motivate for a variety of reason as stated above (see section II). Gaskins (1996)
echoed this notion by stating, “student employees form the foundation of success for
most collegiate recreational sports programs. Consequently, it is very important to
understand the demographics and characteristics of an institution’s
paraprofessional population” (p. 46). Continuing with this sentiment, it should be
the goal of recreational professionals to not only learn and understand the
characteristics and tendencies of their student employees, but also determine the
different ways in which they can facilitate improvement of work performance by
their student employees.
25
Work design is one medium in which professionals and researchers can use
to study the workplace and the desires of its employees. Historically, work design
theories focused specifically on motivation and only recently these theories have
expanded to include additional factors that could influence work design. Humphrey,
Nahrgang, and Moregson (2007) concluded that the work aspects of social and work
context needed to be added to the work design theory to make it more all-
encompassing. These authors proposed that not only did motivational
characteristics components (autonomy-work scheduling, work methods, and
decision-making; skill variety; task variety; significance; task identity; feedback
from the job; information processing; job complexity; specialization; and problem
solving) need to be expanded upon, but social characteristics (interdependence;
feedback from others; social support; and interaction outside the organization) and
work context characteristics (physical demands; work conditions; and ergonomics)
were also key attributes to work design characteristics portion of job design
characteristics. With this more complete model, the Word Design Questionnaire will
allow the authors to have a more complete understanding of campus recreation
student employees and, hopefully, assist campus recreation professionals in
improving the work performance of their employees.
26
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Purpose of Study
The question of work design has long been of interest to both researchers
and managers. Work design is a form of intervention that, both conceptually and
practically, examines factors surrounding work, defines, analyzes and restructures
them in order to maintain effective work performance or achieve improvement. The
present study will apply the Work Design Questionnaire (Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006) to campus recreation student employment as a diagnostic tool in order to
describe campus recreation student employee perceptions of their jobs and,
perhaps, identify areas needing improvement.
The study thus proposes to address this primary objective:
Diagnosis of campus recreation student employment using the Work Design
Questionnaire (EDQ) as a diagnostic tool.
Objective
The aim is diagnosis of work design of campus recreation employment titles
and roles. In order to achieve that end, the Work Design Questionnaire (Morgeson
and Humphrey, 2006) will be administered to student employees in campus
recreation.
27
Work Design Questionnaire
The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) is a scale with three major
dimensions. The first is composed of motivational work characteristics. The
dimension is further divided into two subcategories: (i) task characteristics and (ii)
knowledge characteristics. Elements (further subcategories) of task characteristics
include autonomy (with still further subdivision into three components: work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy),
task variety, task significance, task identity and feedback from job. Elements of
knowledge characteristics include job complexity, information processing, problem
solving, skill variety and specialization.
The second major dimension of the questionnaire describes social
characteristics of work. Its subcategories include social support, interdependence
(further divided into initiated interdependence and received interdependence),
interaction outside the organization and feedback from others.
The third major dimension delineates work context characteristics and is
composed of the following elements: ergonomics, physical demands, work
conditions, and equipment use.
The Work Design Questionnaire has an average internal consistency
reliability of .87. A reliability in the range of .65 to .70 is often considered for
minimal acceptability (DeVellis, 2003; Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003), even
though some researchers suggest higher, depending on stage of research (Bobko,
2001). At .87, the WDQ demonstrates very good reliability (DeVellis, 2003). The
authors investigated factor structure by testing several models through
28
35
confirmatory factor analysis. They found that a 21-factor model fit their data best
and that is the model employed for the WDQ.
Respondents
Respondents were college students employed in campus recreation across
the United States. Participants worked in all areas of campus recreation and 19
areas contained four or more respondents. An additional category, entitled “other”
contained 43 participants who have given job titles that could not concisely be
grouped with any of the other employment positions.
Procedures
Permission was received from the authors of the WDQ to use the instrument.
1. The WDQ was administered to respondents (described above).
2. The online survey tool in Firefly Survey was used to collect the data via an
Internet survey.
3. In total, 901 participants began the survey with only 441 completing the
survey. After eliminating participant responses that did not fit the sample
population, the total respondents were 424.
Data analysis
For Objective 1, the WDQ is used as a summated scale. Mean scores of
constructs on the questionnaire were compared to the mean scores of the same
constructs generated by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006).
The author realizes that there are some potential limitations. The sample
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) used in testing the WDQ was heavily weighted
towards professionals and also included workers with long work experience. These
29
parameters are hardly true for college students. Yet, testing the questionnaire on
college students is a prudent first step in getting a first overview of its potential
applicability to that population. It is a useful move because the sample used by
Morgeson and Humphrey covered 22 occupational groups, so the potential
applicability of the questionnaire is wide. Thus, it will be useful to know what a
potentially-versatile tool indicates about the college population.
Summary
Through this process of exploration it is hoped that a better understanding of
the applicability of the WDQ to campus recreation will be attained and, in the event
of an emergent model that is somewhat different, a version of the WDQ more suited
to campus recreation will begin to be developed.
30
CHAPTER IV
OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
Sample
Campus recreation directors form 423 universities were e-mailed the survey
link with information regarding the survey content and were asked to forward the
link on to their student employees. In total, 901 people responded to the survey and
answered at least one question. A total of 441 went through the entire survey and
answered most, if not all questions. Of this amount, 16 were discarded because they
did not fit the population description (i.e. described their employment as full-time).
In total, responses of 424 student employees who fit the population of interest were
retained.
Demographics
Out of 424 respondents, 165 (39%) who answered are males and female
respondents totaled 259 (61%). One person chose not to report their gender. A total
of 367 (87%) of respondents identified as pursuing their undergraduate degree and
57 (13%) at the graduate level and one respondent chose not answer. A breakdown
of ages can be found in Table 1. Ninety percent of all respondents fell between the
ages of 18 and 24, which is assumed the average age range of typical college
students for this study.
31
Table 1 PARTICIPANT AGES
Age f %
18 24 6
19 50 23
20 88 32
21 101 24
22 65 15
23 35 8
24 18 4
25 9 2
26 9 2
27 and older 25 6
Totals 424 100
With regard to employment title, several options were given to respondents
to choose from. Respondents were also given the choice to write in their position if
they felt that the list did not adequately fit their situation. After receiving all the
data, the researcher attempted to group any open-ended questions together to make
the data easier to read. Any employment title that had a total of three responses or
less was placed under the “other” category. Totals for each employment position can
be found in Table 2. The leading employment positions were Facility Manager (55,
32
13%), Front Desk Attendant (53, 13%), Intramural Sport Supervisor (44 responses,
10%), and Other 43 (10%).
Table 2 EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS Position f %
Facility Manager 55 13
Front Desk Attendant 53 13
Intramural Sports Supervisor 44 10
Other 43 10
Weight Room Attendant 36 8
Lifeguard 34 8
Fitness Instructor 27 6
Front Desk Supervisor 26 6
Intramural Sports Referee 18 4
Sport Clubs Supervisor 14 3
Outdoor Center Attendant 12 3
Personal Trainer 10 2
Rock Wall Supervisor 10 2
Administrative Assistant/Office Assistant 8 2
Equipment Supervisor 8 2
Marketing 7 2
Outdoor Trip Leader 6 1
33
Table 2 Continued
Ropes Course Supervisor 5 1
Graphic Designer 4 1
Swim Instructor 4 1
Totals 424 100
Results
In order to determine how students viewed their employment, current
results were compared to the mean scores of the original Work Design
Questionnaire, which was based on a five-point scale (Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006). Table 3 presents means and standard deviations from the two studies.
Table 3 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION RESULTS OF WDQS
Standard Mean Standard Deviation
Category Mean Deviation (Original WDQ) (Original WDQ)
Motivational-Task Characteristics Work Scheduling Autonomy 3.90 0.82 3.93 0.89 Decision-Making Autonomy 4.09 0.93 4.12 0.74 Work Methods Autonomy 3.81 0.74 3.99 0.80 Task Variety 3.86 0.78 4.13 0.69 Task Significance 3.58 0.59 3.95 0.81 Task Identity 3.65 0.71 3.61 0.84 Feedback From Job 3.78 0.76 3.91 0.64 Motivational-Knowledge Characteristics Job Complexity 3.07 0.43 3.85 0.73 Information Processing 3.66 0.69 4.31 0.67 Problem Solving 3.53 0.61 3.78 0.83 Skill Variety 3.79 0.79 4.24 0.59 Specialization 3.43 0.59 3.99 0.72 Social Characteristics Social Support 4.41 1.20 4.12 0.52 Initiated Interdependence 3.17 0.52 3.56 0.82 Retrieved Interdependence 3.47 0.67 3.69 0.86 Interaction Outside Organization 3.49 0.60 3.54 1.03 Feedback From Others 3.61 0.73 3.54 0.72 Work Context Ergonomics 3.80 0.74 3.70 0.77 Physical Demands 2.61 0.25 2.33 1.11 Work Conditions 3.68 0.77 3.64 1.00 Equipment Use 2.96 0.46 3.37 0.93
34
35
Motivational-Task Characteristics
Responses for the motivational-task characteristics questions were relatively
close between the current responses and the original mean scores. Questions
dealing with work schedule autonomy had a mean score of 3.90 for the current
study compared to 3.93 with the original WDQ. Decision-making autonomy
questions scored a mean of 4.09 compared to the original mean score of 4.12.
Questions categorized as work methods autonomy had a mean score of 3.81 with
the current study and scored a 3.99 for the original survey. Task variety questions
had a mean score of 3.86 for the current study and 4.13 in relation to the original
mean score. Questions dealing with task significance scored 3.58 and 3.95 in the
current and original studies, respectively. Task identity questions had a higher mean
score in the current study (3.65) compared to the original mean score (3.61). Lastly,
feedback from job questions had mean scores of 3.78 for the current study and 3.91
for the original WDQ.
Motivational-Knowledge Characteristics
Questions dealing with job complexity had a mean score of 3.07 for the
current survey and 3.85 for the original questionnaire. Information processing
questions had a mean score of 3.66 as compared to the original mean score of 4.31.
Questions regarding problem solving scored a 3.53 with the current study and a
3.78 with the original survey. Skill variety questions had a mean score of 3.79 and
4.24 for the current and original survey results, respectively. Lastly, questions
dealing with specialization questions had a mean score of 3.43 for the current study
and 3.99 for the original study.
36
Social Characteristics
Social support questions scored a higher mean score in the current study
(4.41) compared to the original study (4.12). Initiated interdependence questions
had a mean score of 3.17 for the present survey while the original survey scored a
3.56. Questions involving received interdependence had a current mean score of
3.47 and 3.69 for the original survey. Interaction outside the organization showed a
mean score of 3.49 for the present study and a mean score of 3.54 for the 2006
study. Lastly, feedback from others questions showed a higher mean score in the
present study as compared with the original with mean scores of 3.61 and 3.54,
respectively.
Work Context
For the purpose of answering research question one, only the work context
questions from the original Work Design Questionnaire were compared against one
another in Table 3. The first three set of questions-ergonomics, physical demands,
and work conditions-all showed higher mean scores in the current study (3.80, 2.61,
and 3.96) as compared to the original mean scores of the Word Design
Questionnaire (3.70, 2.33, and 3.64). The last set of questions, equipment use, had a
lower current mean score (2.96) than the original mean score (3.37).
Speculation/Conclusion
While the data show that student employees agree with most of the work
design questions, several questions do stand out and show lower mean scores.
These questions, those specifically dealing with job complexity, physical demands,
37
and equipment use, show some disagreement by student employees, possibly
suggesting dissatisfaction by student employees.
39
38
CHAPTER V
DIAGNOSIS OF CAMPUS RECREATION: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summary of Study
College students are finding a need more than ever to retain employment for
monetary reasons than in the past due to rising tuition costs, social needs, lack of
student loan funding, etcetera (Richardson, Evans, & Gbadamosi, 2009). With this
greater need more students are seeking employment and one major employer is the
university itself. Campus recreation is a department within a university that
specifically seeks out student employees to work their facilities and programs.
Typical campus recreation departments housed in medium and large universities
will employ anywhere from 100 to over 250 student employees to run the daily
operations of campus recreation facilities and programs. With this large number of
student employees it is vital that professionals in campus recreation not only
understand the employment needs of their students, but also are continually
evaluating the workplace to ensure that both the needs of the students and
department are being met.
The current study is an exploration of campus recreation work design. The
study focused on the following primary research question:
39
How or in what ways can work for student employees in campus recreation
be redesigned, based on the employees’ assessment of the current state of work (as
indicated by their responses on the Work Design Questionnaire)?
An Internet-based version of the Work Design Questionnaire4 was created,
using Firefly Surveys. Directors of campus recreation programs from 423
universities located in all 50 states were e-mailed the survey link and asked to
forward the link to their student employees. The online survey was live for one
week and had 424 completed responses.
Summary of Results
The data collected from respondents of the Work Design Questionnaire
provided important insight for addressing the research questions of the study. With
regard to the first research question, total mean scores of questions, broken down
by category type, were compared to the mean scores of the original Work Design
Questionnaire to generate a very general sense of how campus recreation might
compare with a broad cross-sectional picture of their work conditions and
perceptions of those conditions. Some categories where differences can be seen at
face value include Task Significance, Job Complexity, Information Processing,
Problem Solving, Specialization, Initiated Interdependence, Received
Interdependence, Physical Demands, and Equipment Use. Campus Recreation
student employment is different, however, from the types of career work roles
represented in the original WDQ data. Therefore a more detailed diagnosis of
campus recreation work design will be presented below on individual items as they
4 The Work Design Questionnaire was used by permission of the authors.
40
are scored by campus recreation student employees—with relative comparisons
made within the data set itself.
Discussion
For the purpose of this study, Research Question 1 is stated as follows: In
what ways can work for student employees in campus recreation be re-designed,
based on the employee’s assessment of the current state of work as indicated by
their responses on the Work Design Questionnaire? The following section will
provide a diagnostic assessment of campus recreation based on the WDQ and
responses received.2
According to the responses on the Word Design Questionnaire, overall
student employees seem to be satisfied with the way their jobs are designed.
Responses show a mix of high and low scores, potentially indicating work design
elements which student employees in campus recreation find agreeable and ones
they do not find agreeable.
In the current survey, the sections regarding decision-making autonomy and
social support scored the highest mean score (over a 4.0). This high score, relative
to the other parts, may indicate two areas in campus recreation where professionals
have successfully worked with student employees and should continue current
practices. The following are observations on specific questions.
2 Investigation of Research Question 2 has been placed n Appendix C. The decision was
made in order not to interrupt the continuity of the task of Research Question 1 as a
diagnostic assessment of current campus recreation work status and a basis for making
direct recommendations about design of student employee tasks. Research Question 2
addresses the instrument itself.
41
Work Scheduling Autonomy
The job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work.
This question had a mean score of 4.16. This is higher than the average for the
“Work Scheduling Autonomy” questions (3.90), therefore this question illustrates
how positively student employees in campus recreation feel about the opportunity
to have their schedule accommodated. Respondents agree that they have an input
regarding their schedule and campus recreation professionals should continue to
give their student employees the opportunity to request a schedule that takes into
account the employee’s needs, but the needs of the job as well.
The job allows me to decide on the order in which things are done on the job.
This question scored .25-points lower than the mean score for the “Work Scheduling
Autonomy” questions (3.90). This lower score, in comparison to the other mean
scores for this section, may indicate that respondents felt that they do not have a lot
of control with regard to how they complete tasks. Research tells us that college-
aged students prefer a structured environment (Shaw and Fairhurst, 2008),
contradicting the response to this question. It is important for campus recreation
professionals to note that while college-aged students do prefer clear instructions
and structure, they may also desire some elements of control within the tasks they
are assigned.
Decision-Making Autonomy
The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying
out the work. This question, which has a mean score of 4.34, is .26 higher than the
average on the “Decision-Making Autonomy” questions. It might be seen as
42
suggesting that students see their jobs as empowering. The opportunity for student
employees to add their own decisions and ideas could possibly allow them to enjoy
their jobs more. Supervisors should strive to continually entrust student employees
with an opportunity to make decisions and give them the training and tools needed
to make proper judgment calls.
Task Identity
The job allows me to complete the work I start. While the overall mean score
for “Task Identity” questions was 3.65, this question scored a 3.89. The difference
indicates that student employees feel as though they are not only in positions where
they are assigned tasks, but that they are allowed and able to complete these tasks.
Campus recreation professionals should continue to give student employees time
and skill-appropriate projects so that employees can complete them and feel a sense
of accomplishment.
Job Complexity
The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time. This item, with a
mean of 3.63, scored higher than the average score of 3.07 for the “Job Complexity”
category. This is a relatively positive response indicating that student employees are
being assigned multiple tasks that offer more appropriate challenge rather than less.
Campus recreation professionals are reminded that they can use strategies such as
multi-tasking at an appropriate challenge level to maintain a level of challenge
satisfaction.
The job involves performing relatively simple tasks. With a mean score of 3.07
for the “Job Complexity” questions, this question had a mean of 2.66. This lower
43
score suggests that executing straightforward tasks may not challenge the employee
enough. Professionals are advised to design tasks that, while not overwhelming the
student employee in terms of difficulty, will also not be so simple as to create an
experience such as boredom.
Information Processing
The job requires that I engage in a large amount of thinking. Showing a
relatively low score as compared to all other mean scores for the questionnaire, this
question had a score of 3.29, compared to the overall mean score of 3.66 for
“Information Processing” questions. This lower score suggests that student
employees might not feel that their work is challenging and does not require enough
engagement of their thinking abilities. While most student employment positions in
campus recreation tend not to require high skill levels, it is important that campus
recreation professionals seek different ways to keep their employees interested in
their job.
The job requires me to keep track of more than one thing at a time. This
question scored the largest mean difference (.59) between the average mean score
for “Information Processing” questions (3.66) and actual mean score for the
question (4.25). Respondents indicate that they are able to multi-task in their
current position, a trait of college-aged students. Research indicates that this is a
strong characteristic of college-aged students and supervisors should work to
develop this characteristic through the work that students complete (Shaw &
Fairhurst, 2008).
44
The job requires me to analyze a lot of information. This question scored
lower (M=3.39) than the overall mean score for “Information Processing” questions
(3.66). Along the same lines as the previous question, respondents show that their
jobs do not require them to scrutinize information. As mentioned above, supervisors
should seek ways to allow their student employees to use more cognitive skills that
will challenge them and keep them interested in their position.
Skill Variety
The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. The mean
of 3.33 is lower than the average score of all “Skill Variety” questions (3.79). While
all questions give room for interpretation by the subjects, this question in particular
is difficult to decipher. Skill is a broad term that in campus recreation is different for
every position. It is important to mention that Milliron (2008) noted that college-
aged students are not necessarily the most skilled and current college-aged students
are graduating with weaker functional skills. Regardless of whether or not this is the
case, student respondents noted that they are not using high-level skills in their job
and professional staff should attempt to incorporate tasks into their jobs to
minimize this perception. By adding tasks that require the use of more complex
skills, hopefully campus recreation professionals will be able to teach their student
employees the necessary intricate skills needed to succeed in the working world.
Initiated Interdependence
Other jobs depend directly on my job. Compared to the mean score for the
“Initiated Interdependence” questions of 3.17, this question had a mean score of
3.42. It appears as if respondents somewhat feel that the work that they do affects
45
other employee’s jobs. It is the nature of campus recreation student positions to
interact and rely on one another and it may be from this interaction that students
feel or that a student feels that other jobs rely on them and their position.
Interaction Outside Organization
The job requires spending a great deal of time with people outside my
organization. This question scored lower (3.09) than the total mean score (3.49) for
all “Interaction Outside Organization” questions. Campus recreation positions
naturally occur in specific buildings or fields directly related to the department,
leaving the opportunity to spend time with others outside the department at a
minimum. There are only a handful of ways that professionals can work to improve
this aspect, one of which would be to allow student employees to get involved with
campus committees as a representative of the department. This solution might be
applicable to only a few students as many students not only are not interested in
that type of involvement, but so few positions exist in campuses.
The job involves interaction with people who are not members of my
organization. This question’s mean (3.82) is higher than others within the
“Interaction Outside Organization” category (a category mean of 3.49). College-aged
students find social interactions an important aspect of their work positions (Dere,
2009) and campus recreation student employees tend to see their fellow student
workers in the department as members of their organization. Because of this
viewpoint student employees will view all patrons who do not work for the
department as members outside of the organization.
46
On the job, I frequently communicate with people who do not work for the same
organization as I do. While the overall mean score for “Interaction Outside
Organization” questions was a 3.49, this specific question had a mean score of 3.82.
Campus recreation departments provide a service to the campus community and
alumni and, at some institutions, to the general public. With this type of culture
almost all student employee positions interact with patrons that do not work for
campus recreation and make up the larger campus body.
Work Conditions
The workplace is free from excessive noise. Compared to other questions from
the WDQ in the category (M=3.68), this question had a low mean score of 2.82. Noise
is part of the culture in campus recreation programs, especially in the gyms where
music is played at a high volume. This low mean score indicates that student
employees who responded not only recognize the noise in their facilities, but also
believe it to be excessive. Noise in facilities is expected to a certain degree, but some
students may find it excessive in certain cases, such as when student employees
turn up the volume on the radio too loudly, where there are gatherings of large
populations of students to cheer on their teammates in intramural sports, and
during special events that involve large groups of people. While many noises cannot
be adjusted, professionals should evaluate the noises they can control, such as the
radio volume. Gathering input from employees to gauge the level of noise (or sound)
at which they feel comfortable is important.
The job occurs in a clean environment. This question had a mean score of 4.17,
a .49-point difference above the overall mean score (3.68) for the “Work Conditions”
47
questions. In campus recreation facilities it is important to tend to the
upkeep of facility appearance, just as in any facility—and especially ones where
patrons pay for services (even though this is not a survey of patrons). This is one
area that professionals should continually strive to improve as it helps and affects
student and professional staff, as well as patrons to the facility.
Equipment Use
The job involves the use of a variety of different equipment. The overall mean
score for the “Equipment Use” questions was a 2.96, while this question scored a
3.54. Respondents, for the most part, answered that they generally do use a variety
of different equipment while on the job. Based on the nature of their job, student
employees will respond in different ways to this question—e.g. fitness room
attendants, front desk/equipment attendants, and marketing personnel use more
equipment. The use of different equipment can be seen as both positive and
negative. Some students might see the use of a variety of equipment as challenging
while others, especially those who do not understand how to use the equipment,
may become somewhat anxious. With proper training, the latter can be avoided. As
for the former, managers should bear in mind that the variety of equipment used
might be stimulating for some student employees.
The job involves the use of complex equipment or technology. The lower mean
score (2.64) on this item compared to the overall mean score for “Equipment Use”
questions (2.96) hints that student employees do not feel that the equipment and
technology they use on a regular basis is challenging. This could be interpreted in
more than one way. First, the use of basic equipment could be seen as a good thing,
48
especially for students who do not feel comfortable using pieces of equipment they
do not understand. On the other hand, it could be seen in a negative light if student
perceives that they are not being challenged through the equipment and technology
they use thus affecting their morale on the job. To arrive at an appropriate strategy
for action, professionals in campus recreation should communicate with their staff
and ask questions regarding how their staff feels about equipment and technology.
Limitations
Several limitations were faced in the process of carrying out the study. First,
it was assumed by the researcher that the national organization the National
Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) would give the researcher a
complete e-mail list of all the directors of campus recreation at universities that are
members of the organization NIRSA. Close to the anticipated launch of the survey,
NIRSA decided not to release the private e-mails of the directors so the researcher
had to collect individual e-mails from each university’s website. Not all campus
recreation programs had a website nor did all list a direct e-mail address for the
directors of every program, making the distribution of the survey link to all campus
recreation directors impossible. Potential respondents were missed as a result of
this.
Second, the launch of the survey coincided with spring break at some
universities resulting in several campus recreation directors refusing to e-mail the
link.
Another limitation dealt with the survey itself. A few campus recreation
directors e-mailed the researcher explaining that their student staff would be
49
unable to participate in the survey due to one of two things. First, a couple of
universities were conducting their own research about a variety of topics not
disclosed and their research was a priority over the author’s. Second, a small
number of campus recreation directors informed the researcher that their
university’s Institutional Review Board prohibited researchers from outside the
university using their students as research subjects, regardless of the nature of the
project. Although these two circumstances were unforeseen, only about seven
universities responded to the researcher with these claims.
Additionally, since response was solicited based on choice to participate in
response to an e-mail, self-selection became a potential bias and may have occurred
in the sample that completed the survey.
Recommendations
Results of this study have yielded several results that may be useful to
professionals in the campus recreation field who work with student staff on a
regular basis.
Student employees identified areas in their job that professionals in campus
recreation could examine and either improve upon or continue to practice. The
research shows that campus recreation student employees are not being challenged
in their positions, including the use of equipment or technology, the use of high-level
skills, analyzing information, and generally engaging tasks that challenge their
thinking skills. Understanding this aspect should encourage campus recreation
professionals to continually seek new ways to challenge their student employees in
their everyday tasks.
50
The study also indicated that student employees feel that they have input and
responsibility regarding their position, especially when it deals with their work
schedule, how they complete tasks, and how they interact with others both inside
and outside the workplace. Understanding both past research on how college-aged
students feel about work and this new data shows professionals the investment that
many student employees have in their jobs. It is important that campus recreation
professionals understand and allow their student employees to offer input in the
way student employees perform their job and that they respect the relationships
they make with others.
More and specific lessons for campus recreation professionals are detailed in
the “discussion” section above.
Recommendations for Future Studies
This study was an exploration of work design as it relates to student
employees currently employed in campus recreation departments. Future studies
should be conducted to include more respondents from more schools as well as a
more diversified employment pool.
One area in which the study could be expanded would be to look at the actual
employment positions student employees held and the association of role with each
question.
Since student employee jobs in campus recreation are extremely diversified
in relation to job duties, equipment/technology use, social interaction, and many
other factors, it is important to identify the areas of improvement as they relate to
work design for specific employment areas.
51
It would be helpful to generate norm scores on an extensive and
representative campus recreation sample and test mean scores on items derived
from smaller and individual organization studies against those norms. This study is
only a beginning of such an attempt and therefore is insufficient for work design in
campus recreation. Based on such norm scores more adequate conclusions can be
made on individual cases.
Additionally, looking at factors including gender, student classification, and
major may also play a role in the responses. Therefore, additional studies regarding
work design should explore these questions.
Lastly, conducting a similar study with which supervisors are studied rather
than student employees is needed. Examining supervisors would assist in gauging
the level of understanding they have of their student employees as well as aid
supervisors in redesigning work for the benefit of both the student employees and
the program.
Conclusion
One would be hard pressed to speak to any professional in campus
recreation who would not agree that student employees are one of the most
important aspects to campus recreation programs. These staff members not only
assist in the daily operation of facilities and programs housed in campus recreation
departments, but they also provide a direct and daily connection to students, staff,
faculty, alumni, and community members who utilize these services.
Although this study focused specifically on campus recreation student
employees, the same concept of importance to the work that these staff members
52
provide can be applied to other areas as well. Many positions on university
campuses utilize student employees. Professionals who supervise these student
employees need to comprehend the importance of their employees. They all need to
understand that work design for these students is equally important to campus
recreation. Although the specific job duties will vary from employment positions
across a campus, students still retain the same characteristics and tendencies of
their peers, which is vital for professionals to recognize and adjust work to.
Other fields which rely heavily on young adults as part-time employees can
also benefit from the conclusions reached in this study. Specifically, the field of
recreation, which incorporates programs like city parks and recreation
departments, tend to employ many young adults to run their programs. While these
programs do not mirror campus recreation programs exactly, the same concept can
be applied to these young adults as the student employees on university campuses.
It is important to note that this study only looked at campus recreation student
employees and it is important that professionals talk with their own staff to
understand how they view work design rather than the general conclusions drawn
from a sample population.
Professionals who directly supervise student employees undoubtedly have
an important role to play in work design. Beyond adapting aspects of the job to
accommodate the needs and desires of student employees, professionals are also
the driving force for student development. Before professionals readily change
aspects of work to accommodate the desires of student staff, professionals need to
figure out ways to challenge the staff that will not only make them better student
53
employees, but also ready them for work and life beyond their campus recreation
job.
For these reasons it is vital that research continue to be conducted in order
to explore ways in work design can be redesigned with student employees in mind.
Future research is needed to dive deeper into each of the subcontexts of the Work
Design Questionnaire to fully understand how each context relates to student
employees and the role that professionals play in work design. Expanding further,
research is also needed to look at the roles supervisors play in work design and
student development.
Campus recreation professionals have an important task in mentoring and
training student personnel; a task that is not to be taken lightly. Working with
student participants—and more importantly student employees—has attracted
many professionals to a campus recreation career. It is up to all professionals to
continually educate themselves about ways to improve not only their management
styles but also the jobs they provide for students.
54
APPENDICES
55
APPENDIX A
Work Design Thesis Questionnaire Instruction Consent Form You are invited to participate in a research study about work design theory in campus recreation programs. This study is conducted by Shannon Dere, graduate student of Recreation and Leisure Studies, from Texas State University-San Marcos. This study will take approximately 15-30 minutes of your time. You will be asked to complete an online survey about different aspects of your job including a variety of motivational factors. A scale of 1-5 (1 meaning strongly disagree and 5 meaning strongly agree) will be used. Your decision to participate in this study is completely voluntary and you have the right to terminate your participation at any time without penalty. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. If you do not wish to complete this survey, just close your browser. Once you close the survey you may not enter to review or change any of your answers. If you open the survey again it will take you to the question where you left off. Your participation in this research is completely anonymous and data will be kept via the Firefly Survey website under secured pass codes until May 2011. Data will be averaged and reported in sum. Possible outlets of dissemination may be through the Texas State University-San Marcos library as well as the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association Journal and website. Although your participation may not benefit you personally, it will help professionals in the field of campus recreation better understand how student employees view their positions and conclusions will be drawn on how professionals can change/improve the job and/or workplace. There are no known risks to individuals participating in this survey beyond those that exist in daily life. If you have questions about this project or would like to know the results, you may contact Shannon Dere via e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at (858) 243-7118. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, please contact Texas State University-San Marcos Institutional Review Board chair,
56
Dr. Jon Lasser, at (512) 245-3413 or via e-mail at [email protected] or Ms. Beck Northcut, Compliance Specialist, at (512) 245-2102. Please print a copy of this consent form for your records at this time. By clicking the submit button to enter the survey, I am agreeing that I have read and understand the above consent form, I certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I indicate my willingness to voluntarily take part in this survey. Your decision to participate, decline, or withdraw from participation in this survey will have no effect on your current or future status with your current university. IRB Exemption Request Approval EXP2011H3913 The Work Design Questionnaire is used by permission of the author. Task Characteristics-Autonomy Single Choice Grid Work Scheduling Autonomy
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my
work. The job allows me to decide on the order in which things are done on the job. The job allows me to plan how I do my work.
Decision-Making Autonomy
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in
carrying out the work. The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own. The job provides me with significant autonomy in making decisions.
Work-Methods Autonomy
Strongly Disagree Disagree
57
Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job allows me to make decisions about what methods I use to complete
my work. The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in
how I do the work. The job allows me to decide on my own how to go about doing my work.
Task Variety
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job involves a great deal of task variety. The job involves doing a number of different things. The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks. The job involves performing a variety of tasks.
Task Significance
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The results of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other
people. The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of
things. The job has a large impact on people outside the organization. The work performed on the job has a significant impact on people outside the
organization. Task Identity
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
58
The job involves completing a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end.
The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.
The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work I begin.
The job allows me to complete the work I start. Feedback From Job
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The work activities themselves provide direct and clear information about
the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of my job performance. The job itself provides feedback on my performance. The job itself provides me with information about my performance.
Knowledge Complexity Single Choice Grid Job Complexity
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time (reversed
scored). The tasks on the job are simple and uncomplicated (reverse scored). The job comprises relatively uncomplicated tasks (reverse scored). The job involves performing relatively simple tasks (reverse scored).
Information Processing
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job requires me to monitor a great deal of information. The job requires that I engage in a large amount of thinking.
59
The job requires me to keep track of more than one thing at a time. The job requires me to analyze a lot of information.
Problem Solving
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answer. The job requires me to be creative. The job often involves dealing with problems that I have not met before. The job requires unique ideas or solutions to problems.
Skill Variety
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job requires a variety of skills. The job requires me to utilize a variety of different skills in order to complete
the work. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. The job requires the use of a number of skills.
Specialization
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job is highly specialized in terms of purpose, tasks, or activities. The tools, procedures, materials, and so forth used on this job are highly
specialized in terms of purpose. The job requires very specialized knowledge and skills. The job requires a depth of knowledge and expertise.
Social Characteristics Single Choice Grid Social Support
Strongly Disagree
60
Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I have the opportunity to develop close friendships in my job. I have the chance in my job to get to know other people. I have the opportunity to meet with others in my work. My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of the people that work for
him/her. People I work with take a personal interest in me. People I work with are friendly.
Initiated Interdependence
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job requires me to accomplish my job before others complete their job. Other jobs depend directly on my job. Unless my job gets done, other jobs cannot be completed.
Received Interdependence
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job activities are greatly affected by the work of other people. The job depends on the work of many different people for its completion. My job cannot be done unless others do their work.
Interaction Outside Organization
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job requires spending a great deal of time with people outside my
organization.
61
The job involves interaction with people who are not members of my organization.
On the job, I frequently communicate with people who do not work for the same organization.
The job involves a great deal of interaction with people outside my organization.
Feedback from Others
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I receive a great deal of information from my manager and coworkers about
my job performance. Other people in the organization, such as managers and coworkers, provide
information about the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quality) of my job performance.
I receive feedback on my performance from other people in my organization (such as my manager or coworkers).
Work Context Single Choice Grid Ergonomics
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The seating arrangements on the job are adequate (e.g., ample opportunities
to sit, comfortable chairs, good postural support. The workplace allows for all size differences between people in terms of
clearance, reach, eye heights, leg room, etc. The job involves excessive reaching (reverse scored).
Physical Demands
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
62
The job requires a great deal of muscular endurance. The job requires a great deal of muscular strength. The job requires a lot of physical effort.
Work Conditions
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The workplace is free from excessive noise. The climate at the workplace is comfortable in terms of temperature and
humidity. The job has a low risk of accident. The job takes place in an environment free from health hazards (e.g.,
chemicals fumes, etc.). The job occurs in a clean environment.
Equipment Use
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The job involves the use of a variety of different equipment. The job involves the use of complex equipment or technology. A lot of time was required to learn the equipment used on the job.
Demographics Single Choice Question Please choose ONE area that currently best represents your employment within campus recreation.
Weight Room Attendant Personal Trainer Fitness Instructor Facility Manager Front Desk Attendant Front Desk Supervisor Sport Clubs Supervisor Intramural Sports Supervisor Rock Wall Supervisor Ropes Course Supervisor
63
Outdoor Center Attendant Lifeguard Fill In
Gender
Male Female
Education level
Undergraduate Graduate The level of higher education that currently describes you.
Age
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 years and older
64
REFERENCES Anderson, P., Griego, O. V., & Stevens, R. H. (2010, Spring). Measuring high level
motivation and goal attainment among Christian undergraduate students: An empirical assessment and model. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 5(1), 73-88.
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression: Applications for industrial
organizational psychology and management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bradley, G. (2006, November). Work participation and academic performance: A test
of alternative propositions. Journal of Education and Work, 19(5), 481-501. Brandt, J. R. (2008, June). Talkin’ bout my generation. Industry Week, 257(6), 96. Broadbridge, A. & Swanson, V. (2005). Earning and learning: How term-time
employment impacts on students’ adjustment to university life. Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 235-249.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, April 27). College Enrollment and Work Activity of
2009 High School Graduates. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Burns, D. J., Reid, J., Toncar, M., Anderson, C., & Wells, C. (2008). The effect of gender
on the motivation of members of Generation Y college students to volunteer. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 19(1), 99-118.
Curtis, S. (2003). The response of academics to students’ term-time working.
Management Research News, 26(10/11), 70-76. Curtis, S. (2005). Support for working undergraduates: The view of academic staff.
Education & Training, 47(6/7), 496-505. Curtis, S. & Williams, J. (2002). The reluctant workforce: Undergraduates’ part-time
employment. Education & Training, 44(1), 5-10. Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010, February). Impact of reward and recognition and
motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 159-167.
Dere, S. N. D. (2009). Motivation and generational characteristics of student
employees in campus recreation. Unpublished undergraduate senior project, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Sherman, D. R. (1986, January). Employment while in college, academic achievement, and post college outcomes. The Journal of Human Resources, 22(1), 1-23.
Eisner, S. P. (2005, Autumn). Managing Generation Y. S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal, 70(4), 4-16. Fichter, C. (2011, March). Role conflict, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and burnout
among financial advisors. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 16(2), 54-60.
Gaskins, D. A. (1996, Spring). A profile of recreational sports student employees.
NIRSA Journal, 20(3), 43-47. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of
relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holmes, V. (2008). Working to live: Why university students balance full-time study and employment. Education + Training, 50(4), 305-314.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New
York: Random House, Inc. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational,
social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.
Karkowski, W. (2006). The discipline of ergonomics and human factors. In G.
Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 3-31). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Lee, H. (2010, Spring). The relationship between achievement, motivation, and
psychological contracts. Journal of Global Business Issues, 4(1), 9-15. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.
Boston: Harvard University. Manthei, R. J., & Gilmore, A. (2005). The effect of paid employment on university
students’ lives. Education & Training, 47(2/3), 202-215.
66
Mauer, R. (2010, July). Applying what we’ve learned about change. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 33(2), 35-38.
Messmer, M. (2008, June/July). Managing the Millennial generation. NPA Magazine,
7(3), 27-29. Miller, J. T. (1993a). Motivational theory as applied to recreational sports
employees. Journal of the National Intramural Recreational Sports Association, 17(3), 3-6.
Milliron, V. C. (2008, August). Exploring Millennial student values and societal
trends: Accounting course selection preferences. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(3), 405-419.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The word design questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Fast facts. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. (2010). Mission Statement.
http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutUs/MissionVision/Mission_Vision.htm
National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. (2004). The Value of
Recreational Sports in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Individual/Research/value.htm
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generations, great
expectations: A field study of the Millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281-292.
Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drive college-age Generation Y
consumers? Journal of Business Research, 62, 617-628. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Drillings, M. (1994). Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67
Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Massa-McKinley, R. (2008). First-year students’ employment, engagement, and academic achievement: Untangling the relationship between work and grades. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 560-601.
Raines, C. (2002). Managing Millennials. Generations at work: The online home of
Claire Raines Associates. Retrieved from http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm
Ramsborg, G. C., Miller, B., Breiter, D., Reed, B. J., & Rushing, A. (Ed.). (2006).
Strategies to Embrace the Adult Learner. In Professional meeting management. United States of America: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Rawlins, C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. R. (2008). Understanding the new generation:
What the Millennial cohort absolutely, positively must have at work. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 12(2), 1-8.
Richardson, M., Evans, C., & Gbadamosi, G. (2009, September). Funding full-time
study through part-time work. Journal of Education and Work, 22(4), 319-334.
Royal, M. (2001). Methods of job search by university students. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Saint Mary’s University, Nova Scotia, Canada. Sanzotta, D. (1977). Motivational theories and applications for mangers. NY:
American Management Associations. Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education
+ Training, 50, 5, 366-378. Smith, J. W., & Clark, G. (2010). New games, different rules-Millennials are in town.
Journal of Diversity Management, 5(3), 1-11. Tillman, C. J., Smith, F. A., & Tillman, W. R. (2010). Work locus of control and the
multi-dimensionalality of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 14(2), 107-126.
Watson, D. J., & Hassett, W. L. (2005, June). Capitalizing on student workers: The city
of Auburn’s student employment program. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 181-192.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, October). School Enrollment—Social and Economic
Characteristics of Students. Table 5—Type of College and Year Enrolled in College Students 15 Years Old and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, Attendance Status, Control of School, Disability Status, and Enrollment Status. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2008.html
68
Zhang, L. (2010). Human solicitude should be concerned in the management of college students. Canadian Social Science, 6(4), 180-183.
VITA
Shannon Noelle Denton Dere was born in San Diego, California, on July 31,
1987, the daughter of Douglas Gene Dere and Susan Lee Denton-Dere. After
graduating from Mt. Carmel High School, San Diego, California, in 2005, she pursued
a degree at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. She received her
Bachelor of Science degree in Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Administration with a
concentration in Sport Management in June of 2009. Shannon then pursued her
master’s degree in Recreation and Leisure Services at Texas State University-San
Marcos where she simultaneously worked as the Graduate Assistant for Sport Clubs
with the Department of Campus Recreation.
Permanent E-mail Address: [email protected]
This thesis was typed by Shannon N. D. Dere.
