WHAT KIND OF JOBS DO ALASKANS WANT? A STUDY OF … · 2017. 5. 3. · Urban Natives . . . 23 Urban Non-Native Men 24 Urban ... simply looking for the highest paid job with the best

WHAT KIND OF JOBS DO ALASKANS WANT? A STUDY OF ALASKAN EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES

Prepared for

The Alaska Council on Economic Policy

By

John A. Kruse

Institute of Social and Economic Research The University of Alaska

707 A Street, Suite 206 Anchorage, Alaska

June 1982

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION

The Study RegionPopulation Groups Data Base ....

CHAPTER TWO. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF THE ENTIRE STUDY POPULATION ..

Intrinsic Work Preferences Extrinsic Work Preferences

CHAPTER THREE. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF POPULATION GROUPS

1

3 3 5

9

11 15

19

Rural Native Men 19 Rural Native Women 21 Urban Natives . . . 23 Urban Non-Native Men 24 Urban Non-Native Women 27 Rural Non-Native Men 29 Rural Non-Native Women 32 Summary . . . . . . . . 33

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

iii

iv

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. Alaska Census Divisions

Figure 2. Population Study Groups

Table 1. Estimated Sampling Errors . . .

Table 2. Elements of Employment Preference

Table 3. Employment Preferences of Alaska Adults

Table 4. Job Satisfaction by Job Type

Table 5. Employment Preferences of Rural Native Men

Table 6. Employment Preferences of Rural Native Women

Table 7. Employment Preferences of Urban Natives .

Table 8. Employment Preferences of Urban Non-Native Men

Table 9. Characteristics of Older Urban Non-Native Men by Job Satisfaction . . .

Table 10. Employment Preferences of Urban Non-Native Women

Table 11. Characteristics of Younger Urban Non-Native Women by Job Satisfaction

Table 12. Characteristics of Older Urban Women by Job Satisfaction .

Table 13. Employment Preferences of Rural Non-Native Men

Table 14. Employment Preferences of Rural Non-Native Women

Table 15. Summary of Employment Conditions and Relevant Employment Policies for Alaskan Population Groups . . .

V

4

6

7

10

11

13

20

22

23

25

26

27

28

30

31

32

34

vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

If Alaskans could freely choose, what job characteristics do they think are most important: high starting pay? generous fringe benefits? time off to do other things? a friendly work environment? Do Alaskans prefer working with people, things, or information? Are the same preferences shared by most Alaskans? Do we need to be concerned about wha~ kinds of jobs Alaskans prefer, or are most Alaskans satisfied with their jobs? Finally, what could the State of Alaska do to reduce job dissatisfaction in Alaska if it exists?

The Alaska Growth Policy Council (now the Alaska Council on Economic Policy) asked the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) to examine these questions. Council members recognized that the state already has a significant effect on employment opportunities both through its own expenditures and employment practices and through its economic development policies. They wanted to know whether the state should consider Alaskan preferences in policy decisions having an impact on employment opportunities, and, if so, they wanted to know what types of employment the state should encourage.

Alaskans do have clear employment preferences, and they are not simply looking for the highest paid job with the best fringe benefits. On the contrary, they desire interesting work in which they can work with people they like. Alaskans think work should be rewarding in itself and should offer means to achieve benefits outside of work as well.

Some 40,000 or more Alaskans are dissatisfied with their jobs. An unknown additional number are not working at all because they cannot meet their employment preferences. Still more Alaskans, however, are not working because there are simply no jobs from which to choose. Unemployment, not unmet employment preferences, is Alaska's principal employment challenge.

There is widespread agreement among Alaskans concerning the importance of a broad scope of employment benefits such as finding interesting work, working with people you like, testing your abilities, developing skills and self-confidence, and obtaining good fringe benefits. There also appears to be a great diversity in the type of work Alaskans find interesting. These findings suggest that the state should not endeavor to encourage or discourage the creation of specific occupational demands in response to stated employment pieferences, but rather could consider ways to increase job satisfaction by changing the mix of benefits provided by existing and expected employment opportunities.

How can the state act to change employment benefits? First, the state can make employers aware that, contrary to their own beliefs, employees value good working relationships more than they value high starting wages and job security. Second, the state could explore means by which Alaskan jobs can be restructured to offer valued working conditions. For example, government and industry could cooperate to structure work crews in resource extraction industries so that persons from the same village or region could work together and so that work rotation schedules are sensitive to desires of returning home from remote work sites to hunt and fish or to participate in important community activities. Encouragement of job splitting might be another way to meet the desires of many urban and rural residents to have time off from work.

Most people organize their lives around wage employment, not only because of its obvious economic importance but also because of the broad spectrum of personal benefits that come from work. We did find, however, that for many rural native men, hunting, fishing, and wage employment activities share the central role usually filled by wage work alone. As a result of their interest in combining wage work with hunting and fishing activities, a significant proportion of rural native men prefer jobs which do not involve extensive career commitments. Employment in the fishing and lumber industries provide significant, long-term opportunities that fit this preference in some areas of rural Alaska. Elsewhere, however, local residents depend on construction employment opportunities, which are sporadic over the short term and may decline as villages meet their basic needs for schools, housing, and other facilities. Over the long term, rural job satisfaction in these areas is likely to depend upon the development of new employment which still offers opportunities to mix wage work and hunting and fishing.

There are obvious limits to how much employment opportunities can be created or modified to better fit Alaskan preferences. Expensive oil field operations cannot be disrupted by temporary absences of employees, for example. Many jobs simply cannot be structured to offer high levels of worker autonomy or variation in work tasks. Another way the state can effectively improve job satisfaction, however, · is to increase the ability of Alaskans to compete for jobs. This, of course, is the objective of existing education programs and local employment offices.

Finally, Alaskans who are dissatisfied with their job often can and do choose to obtain other employment without public assistance. Our results show that young workers (18 to 24 years old) are almost three times as likely as older workers (35 or older) to be dissatisfied with their job. Much of this dissatisfaction is probably associated with the common necessity of performing less desirable work in order to later obtain an attractive job. We also know that it is exceptional to find a person entering the labor force who knows clearly what.they want to do, and who knows what his or her employment

2

experience will actually be. The trial and error approach to career choice may be inefficient, but it appears to be an inevitable component of labor force behavior. The state might be able to reduce these errors in choice, however, by expanding the opportunities for high school students to experience alternate forms of employment.

In the remainder of this chapter, we describe the regions of Alaska for which we have data on employment preferences, the population groups we have targeted for comparison, and the data base used in the study. Chapter Two first introduces the concept of employment preferences and then presents the study findings for the study region as a whole. Chapter Three concludes the report with a comparison of employment preferences among the population groups studied.

The Study Region

The policy issue of meeting Alaskan's employment preferences is, of course, a statewide concern. Because employment preferences are not routinely measured, however, we must either collect new data at considerable expense, or use the results of a special study. The resources available to this project were insufficient to consider a statewide data collection effort. Fortunately, however, a data base does exist for 90 percent of the state's population. The geographic coverage of this data base defines our study region (see Figure 1).

Since our study area includes such a large proportion of Alaska's adults, statewide results, were they available, would not differ substantially from the results we report for our entire sample. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the 10 percent of the adult population not included in our study region differs significantly from our study population; for example, 48 percent of all Alaska natives residing in Alaska live in the region not covered in our study. Therefore, we cannot provide breakdowns of our results for an important segment of Alaska's population.

Population Groups

Were we to c'onfine our analysis to the entire adult population in the study region, we would likely miss significant variations in employment conditions and preferences. Policies based on such an analysis would have to be applied to the entire population, an inefficient approach at best. At worst, policies based on descriptions of the entire population might actually be counterproductive for population groups having employment preferences or experiences that differ from the average.

3

.p-.

a/ ~o

'-.,~ .. .......... ______ ,,,.,.,,·

.. ... .. .. . . . (:I. ..... ~ ........... ________ _

.. ., O""'

Q

;;;:,v~ ~

Durrow-North Slope Divisio~

KOBUK

KVSKOKWIM

South.central region

FIGURE 1

A.LASKA CENSUS DIVISIONS

uPPER "(UY.Oil

LEGEND

0 P1,cn or 25,000 to 50,COO inh•b•l•nU outi,dt SM5'\'s

Interior region

Southeast region_ SCAl .. E .

~ s~~3- 2!(0"'m

~.., ~

<fl

ALEUTIAN ISLAN:)S' (PART)

~ ?.I-cf}~ _cf)=' "o "'

0

~-•"

~ o' C'

i3

There are two approaches by which we might identify differences in employment preferences and conditions. First, we could sort individuals according to the mix of preferences or employment conditions they share and then attempt to define the geographic and demographic characteristics of each group. Alternatively, we could define the geographic and demographic characteristics of a set of population groups first and then develop profiles of employment preferences and conditions for each defined group. We chose the latter approach since we believe it is more important to have clearly identifiable population groups that specific policies can target than it is to have homogenous "groups" that may be dispersed and hard to identify. The groups identified, along with estimates of their approximate size and proportion of the total adult population, are displayed in Figure 2. Remember that the study region excludes northern and western Alaska. The reader will note that small native sample sizes precluded us from making the same detailed age and sex breakdowns we could for nonnative population groups.

Data Base

The data bases for our analysis are the coded results of 1,607 personal interviews conducted in 1979. 1 We constructed the survey sample so that the probability of any household and individual being selected is known, thus permitting us to calculate potential errors due to sampling. We deliberately sampled higher proportions of households in rural communities, in general, and in rural native communities, in particular. Thus, while rural native adults comprise approximately 3 percent of all adults in the study region, they comprise 10 percent of the survey sample. Estimates of sampling errors for data presented for each population group are displayed in Table 1.

1The survey, referred to as the Alaska Public Survey, was funded by the State of Alaska, Division of Parks; the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management, Outer Continental Shelf Office; the National Park Service; the University of Alaska; and the University of Washington. The total sample size of the survey is 2,864. Question topics include recreation, hunting and fishing, employment, perceived community conditions, attitudes toward natural resources, management, and background characteristics.

5

Q"

Urban Adults 1

202,600 86%

I

Non-Native Adults 193,200

82%

Male Adults 96,600

41%

18-35 35+ Years Years 54,200 42,400

23% 18%

FIGURE 2 POPULATION STUDY GROUPS

Total Adult Population

235,600

I

Native Adults 2 Native Adults 9,400 7,100

4% 3%

Female Adults 96,000

41% I I

18-35 36+ Native Hale Female 18-35 Years Years Adults Adults Adults Years ,_

56,600 40,100 9,400 3,100 4,000 .. 7,100 24% 17% 4% 1% 2% 3%

Rural Adults 33,000

14%

Non-Native Adults 25,900

11%

t1ale Adults Female Adults 14,100 11,800

6% I 5%

36+ 18-35 ·J_ 36+ Years Years. Years 1,000 7,100 4,700

3% 3% 2%

1Urban is defined as any community with 800 or more households, thus including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Wrangell, Petersburg, Kodiak, and Palmer.

2We deliberately sampled a larger fraction of rural areas in general, and native villages in particular. For this reason, we can reliably report rural native data by sex. In the urban areas, however, our native sample is too small to reliably report data by sex.

TABLE 1 . ESTIMATED SAMPLING ERRORS

Estimated Sampling Error a

Population Group Sample Size (percent)

Total 1,607 + 2

Urban 1,054 3

Urban Native 55 13

Urban Non-Native 999 3

Urban Non-Native Men 18-35 282 6

Urban Non-Native Men 36 or More 231 6

Urban Non-Native Women 18-35 293 6

Urban Non-Native Women 36 or More 193 7

Rural 553 4

Rural Native 163 8

Rural Non-Native 390 5

Rural Native Men 80 11

Rural Native Women 83 11

Rural Non-Native Men 18-34 94 10

Rural Non-Native Men 36 or More 119 9

Rural Non-Native Women 18-34 100 10

Rural Non-Native Women 36 or More 77 11

aThe estimated sampling error can be interpreted according to the following example. If 45 percent of the total sample think testing their abilities is a very important attribute of a preferred job, then we can be 95 percent sure that the actual proportion of the total population will be within plus or minus two percent of the observed sample value of 45 percent.

7

8

CHAPTER TWO

EHPLOYHENT PREFERENCES OF THE ENTIRE STUDY POPULATION

Eighty-six percent of the adult population in our study area participated in the labor force during 1979. Not all were in the labor force at one time, nor were all in the labor force for the majority of the year. However, the average adult Alaskan is clearly likely to be in the labor force during the year, regardless of location, sex, ethnicity, or age class. The vast majority of adults, therefore, are likely to have opinions concerning the benefits they would like to get from working.

Based on our survey respc,iises, 12 percent of the adults in our study area employed in 1979 thought their job was not at all close to the kind of job they would like. Another 12 percent said their job was not very close to their ideal. The total proportion of dissatisfied workers, 24 percent, translates to roughly 40,000 people in the study area. The observed rate of job dissatisfaction in Alaska is comparable to that in the United States as a whole. 2

v-lhat accounts for the fact that about one in four Alaskans are dissatisfied with their jobs? Researchers have found that people expect their jobs to provide many benefits (Rosenberg, 1957; Kilpatrick, 1964). The absence of one or more of the preferred benefits results in some degree of dissatisfaction. The key to understanding job dissatisfaction, then, is to know what benefits people consider to be most important. We refer to these desired benefits as employment preferences.

To better understand how these preferences might be related to each other and how they might differ among population groups, various researchers have constructed taxonomies which group employment preferences (Zytowski, 1980). We think a simplified version of an employment taxonomy may help the reader understand the overall concept of employment preferences. The two categories of our taxonomy are:

1. Intrinsic preferences, or preferences which are directly associated with the work being performed and are part of the work experience. Examples are interesting work, working with people one likes, and the ability to exercise control.

20ur survey question differed from that used in national studies. For comparison, we used the proportion of employed adults nationwide who gave a response of 1, 2, 3, or 4 on a 7-point scale where 1 meant completely dissatisfied and 7 meant completely satisfied. The national figure is 21 percent (Campbell, Converse and Rodgers, 1976).

9

2. Extrinsic preferences, or preferences for benefits that come from working that are valuable outside of work as a means to attain other goals. Examples are pay, security, and a chance to gain self-confidence.

Within these two categories, we measured preferences for a total of fifteen potential benefits associated with employment (see Table 2). Our review of the literature suggests that we covered most, but not all, benefits that have been identified. 3 At the same time, we have included several new benefits that we think may have particular meaning in Alaska. For each of the fifteen potential employment preferences, we asked our survey respondents whether they thought a potential preference was very important, important, not very important, or not at all important to them. Because most respondents felt that each potential preference was at least important, we are able to capture variations in the relative importance of each potential preference by reporting the percentage of respondents who stated that a given preference is very important to them.

TABLE 2. ELEMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE

Intrinsic

Type of Work Working with People You Like

Being in Control Testing Abilities Variation in Work

Excitement

Extrinsic

Developing Skills and Abilities Developing Self-Confidence

Opportunities for Advancement Good Benefits

Good Starting Pay Job Security

Keeping Physically Fit Work Part of the Year

Time Off to Hunt and Fish

3Among the employment preferences we do not cover are the opportunities to gain social recognition and to help others.

10

Intrinsic Work Preferences

TYPE OF WORK

Consistent with national findings and contrary to many people's expectations, fewer Alaskans in our study area think that good starting pay, fringe benefits, and advancement potential are very important than those who think that performing a preferred kind of work is very important (see Table 3). This does not mean these basic employment benefits are unimportant; in fact, the lowest paid workers in Alaska are much less likely to be satisfied with their jobs than other workers (58 versus 80 percent, respectively). 4 Overall, however, other aspects of the job assume greater importance, perhaps because they are more salient on a day-to-day basis. A boring job or poor working relationship, for example, can be a source of continual frustration while differences in starting pay or fringe benefit packages are not matters of daily concern.

TABLE 3. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF ALAKSA ADULTS

Percent Stating Preference is

Intrinsic Preferences Very Important Overall Rank

Type of Work 71 1 Working with People You Like 65 2 Being in Control 48 7 Testing Abilities 45 8 Variation in Work 39 10 Excitement 35 13

Extrinsic Preferences

Develo'ping Skills and Abilities 64 3 Developing Self-Confidence 60 4 Opportunities for Advancement 51 5 Good Benefits 50 6 Good Starting Pay 37 12 Job Security 33 14 Keeping Physically Fit 44 9 Work Part of the Year 38 8 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 31 15

4We defined the lowest paid workers to include all earning under $5.00 per hour.

11

Alaskans are not unique in attaching great importance to the type of work they do. According to researchers investigating the determinants of the American quality of life, "the perception which by itself explains the most variance in job satisfaction concerns whether the work is interesting or not" (Campbell et al., 1976: 299). In itself, the finding that both Americans in general and Alaskans in particular most prefer to have an interesting job tells us little about what specific jobs are most attractive. We might guess that jobs involving redundant tasks such as assembly line work would be less interesting. There are few such jobs in Alaska. Beyond the obviously boring jobs, however, we need more information to evaluate the intrinsic interest associated with employment opportunities. What makes the question more complicated is that individuals differ in what they find interesting.

To capture the type of work preferred, national researchers have commonly used three categories:

• Jobs dealing with things - including tools, electronic components.

machines, vehicles,

• Jobs dealing with paper or information - including work with computers, financial records, books, air traffic flows.

• Jobs dealing with people - including insurance, and real estate clerks,

retail trade, finance salesmen and brokers.

We did not ask our survey respondents directly which type of work they prefer; however, we did ask whether their current jobs closely fit the kind of jobs they want. Seventy-five percent of all employed Alaskans in our study area think their job is close to the kind of job they want. We can, therefore, see if Alaskans are more likely to be satisfied with one type of job than they are, as Table 4, item A shows. 5 Overall, about 80 percent of those working in jobs primarily dealing with paper, information, or things are satisfied,

5We recognize that our respondents' overall assessments are likely to be influenced by more than the type of work they do. To the extent that these other factors vary by the type of work (e.g., jobs dealing with people tend· to have lower wage rates), the overall assessments may not reliably indicate the type of work that is preferred. While our data indicate that some factors do vary by job type, we believe that the job type itself accounts for most of the variation in overall assessments observed between job types. We have already established, after all, that the type of work is the most important element of employment preferences. (see Table 3).

12

compared to 67 percent of those working in jobs primarily dealing with people. The somewhat lower level of job satisfaction may be largely due to lower average wage rates for jobs primarily dealing with people ($8. 26 compared to $10. 24 for jobs primarily dealing with paper or information and $11.05 for jobs dealing with things).

TABLE 4. JOB SATISFACTION BY JOB TYPEa

Job Type

Paper/ Information Things People

A. Percentage Satisfied with 80% 77% 67% Their Jobs

B. Percentage of Persons Holding Jobs in Each Category 40 33 27 = 100% of Job Type

C. Percentage of Persons Holding Jobs in Each Category 42 34 24 = 100% (Satisfied Workers Only)

D. Percentage of Persons Holding Jobs in Each Category 33 31 36 = 100% (Dissatisfied Workers Only)

awe grouped current occupations according to whether we judged them to primarily involve (1) paper and information, (2) things, or (3) people. The following occupations appear in each group: (1) accountants, lawyers, scientists, physicians, engineers, writers, managers and administrators, secretaries, bookkeepers; (2) technicians, craftsmen, operatives, laborers, and most self-employed; (3) nurses, teachers, personnel workers, social workers, sales workers, teachers' aides, telephone operators, service workers, and private household workers.

13

The fact that relatively fewer people holding jobs working primarily with people are satisfied does not mean that the state should attempt to expand the number of the two other types of jobs. Comparing the distribution of all persons holding each job type (Table 4, Item B) with the distribution for only satisfied workers (Table 4, Item C), it is obvious that the ideal distribution of job types closely matches the existing distribution. For example, the ideal proportion of jobs dealing with paper information is 42 percent compared to the actual distribution of 40 percent. This is because the differences in the proportion of workers who are satisfied in each job category are quite small.

If we were to measure preferences for specific occupations, we would find an even greater diversity in opinion about what constitutes interesting work than we found by comparing the three broad categories of jobs. It appears, therefore, neither feasible or desirable to encourage specific occupational demands based on employment preferences on a statewide basis. We will, however, uncover some significant differences in preferred types of employment when we focus on specific population groups in the next chapter.

While the most obvious way of meeting Alaskan employment preferences--increasing the numbers of jobs of the types Alaskans like--does not appear to offer a productive strategy, there may be other ways to improve job satisfaction in Alaska. These ways derive from employment preferences other than the preferred job type and concern the manner in which employment opportunities are structured.

WORKING WITH PEOPLE YOU LIKE

The second most important intrinsic work preference and the second most important work preference overall for adults in our study region is to work with people they like (see Table 3, page 8). While many Alaskan adults in our study area appear not to prefer work primarily dealing with people, most do look particularly to work with people they like. The implications of this preference are not trivial in Alaska because of the known relationship between liking someone and sharing similar values, backgrounds, interests, and even a physical resemblance (Rubin, 1973). Major economic developments in Alaska are likely to continue mixing specialized demands involving imported labor with demands that can be met by the Alaskan labor force. These jobs might be made more attractive to Alaskans if they could be structured to permit members of the same population group to work together. Canadian firms have successfully applied this approach by forming work crews with men from a single rural community (Kupfer and Hobart, 1978).

The opportunity to exercise control over personal actions or the actions. of others is the third most important intrinsic employment benefit, but it is perceived by substantially fewer people as very

14

important (48 percent versus 71 percent for type of work, see Table 3). Overall, being in control is the seventh most important benefit. The remaining three intrinsic work perferences we measured concerned: testing abilities, variation in work, and excitement. A third or more of the adult population think each of these preferences are very important to them when they look for a job (see Table 3).

Extrinsic Work Preferences

The second major category of work-related preferences concerns the benefits that come from working which are valuable outside of work as a means to attain other goals. Good starting pay is an obvious extrinsic benefit. Others we measured included the opportunities to develop skills and abilities; to gain self-confidence; to advance a career; to obtain good benefits such as sick leave, vacation t_ime, and a retirement pension; to keep physically fit; to have part of the year off work; and to have a secure source of income. Of these extrinsic benefits, two clearly appear to be very important to most Alaskans in our study region: developing skills and abilities and developing self-confidence (see Table 3). Traditional employment benefits including opportunities for advancement, good fringe benefits, good starting pay, and job security are surprisingly low on the list of job preferences for most Alaskans living in our study area (see Table 3). We do not believe this means traditional employment benefits are unimportant. On the contrary, they are likely to exert a great influence on basic career choices. Once we choose a preferred type of work, however, the traditional employment benefits mentioned above become relatively fixed and less salient on a day-to-day basis.

TIME OFF WORK

One of the first elements of employment preference that comes up in discussions concerning expected urban and rural differences is the amount of time people do not want wage work. Many people expect that desires to hunt, fish, and pursue other nonwage actvities prompt rural residents to prefer jobs that do not last all year. Our data suggest that the opportunity to have part of the year off wage work and time to hunt and fish are very important employment characteristics to about one-third of the population in our study area. As we will see in the next chapter, this preference applies to urban and rural residents alike. What does this mean in terms of the actual number of months residents would like not to work? On the average, Alaskans in our study area who were in the labor force at all in 1979 worked or wanted to work about 10.5 months a year. This figure may overstate the amount of time residents would like to work since most jobs are not structured to provide more than a few weeks vacation time and those who wished to retain their jobs perhaps worked more than they would like. However, residents with a strong preference for having

15

part of the year off in fact worked a month less, on the average, than other residents (10 versus 11 months respectively). This translates to at least 77,000 adults in our study area who would like not to work two months during the year, far more than the total number of jobs in the study region that are likely to provide suitable opportunities not to work during two months of the year. 6

We cannot tell from our data whether most Alaskans preferring not to work during part of the year actually want large blocks of time to pursue other activities or whether shorter work weeks or even shorter work days would provide most such residents with the preferred mix of work and nonwork time. However, we will return to this question when we discuss the employment preferences of the population groups we studied.

To swnmarize the employment preferences of the population as a whole in our study region, most people think that the type of work that they do should above all be interesting. However, Alaskans widely differ in the type of work they find interesting. If all population groups were to vary in their preferences for job type as widely as does the population as a whole, we could conclude that there is no justification for encouraging the creation of one type of job over another. As we shall see in the next chapter, preferences for job types do vary widely within each population group, although there are some differences between groups as well. However, these group differences are complementary in the sense that a job type that appears relatively less satisfactory to one group is relatively more satisfactory to another group residing in the same labor market area (i.e., urban or rural). Therefore, our conclusion that specific types of work should not be provided on the basis of employment preference will hold.

Performing interesting work is only one of many preferred employment benefits, however, and most people look to their jobs as a chance to do something with people they like and to develop personal skills and self-confidence. These preferences may seem elusive objects for policy intervention, but they can and have been considered by governments and private industry, usually with the objective of increased productivity. Where these preferences are not fulfilled to the degree that Alaskans either do not take or do not keep available jobs, it may be worth attempting to restructure the jobs to be more attractive to residents. Otherwise, such jobs would be filled by new residents. We address this issue in the next chapter.

6For example, if we add all teachers, craftsmen, operatives, and laborers positions in the study region--many of which would not be seasonal--the comparable figure is roughly 60,000 jobs.

16

There are also some existing employment opportunities which are well matched to Alaskan employment preferences for having time off work that may decline in the future; rural construction jobs are an example. Unless new employment opportunities provide the preferred mix of benefits, job satisfaction may decline. Therefore, we want to be sensitive to how employment preferences are currently being met and how they might be met in the future. To do this, we must consider the employment preferences and situation of our major population groups.

17

18

CHAPTER THREE

EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF POPULATION GROUPS

Rural Native Men

The employment preferences of rural native men vary the most from the description given for the total population in Chapter Two, or the "norm" as we shall refer to it in this chapter (see Table 5). They attach much less importance to the type of work they do and to the opportunity to work with people they like. A third of rural native men think opportunities to exercise control or to advance a career are very important compared to half of all adults. In contrast to the norm, good benefits and good starting pay rank high. Rural native men are more likely to be satisfied working with things than they are working with people, paper, or information (80 percent versus 44 and 61 percent, respectively). Finally, rural native men who worked in 1979 were in the labor force an average of nine months compared with ten months for the total population.

What do all these differences mean and why do they occur? Before attempting to answer these questions, it is important to keep in mind that rural native men have more in common with the total population regarding employment preferences than not. Viewed another way, there are more differences among rural native men than there are differences between rural native men and other adults in the study region. The differences cited above do, however, suggest that some rural native men do not consider wage employment to be the central focus of activity and source of benefits that most Alaskans consider it to be. This interpretation is supported by differences in expressed reasons why rural Native men live where they do. Sixty-five percent of rural native men think good, nearby hunting and fishing opportunities are very important reasons for living in their community, compared to 35 percent of the total population. In contrast, 37 percent of the total population think having a challenging or exciting job is very important, compared to 27 percent of rural native men.

We think many rural native men look to hunting and fishing activities as well as wage employment for the economic, personal, and cultural benefits that other groups are more likely to find in wage employment alone. Given their dual interests, these rural Native men may prefer not to take jobs which involve long-term commitments or jobs which often stretch into evenings and weekends. Since jobs which offer opportunities to advance and to exercise control frequently include extensive time commitments, the interest in pursuing hunting and fishing activities may explain why many rural native men attach less importance to these employment benefits.

19

TABLE 5. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF RURAL NATIVE MEN

Percent Stating Rank for Preference is Population Overall

Intrinsic Preferences Very Important Group Rank

Type of Work 42 5 1 Working with People You Like 31 11 2 Being in Control 35 8 7 Testing Abilities 34 10 8 Variation in Work 28 13 10 Excitement 26 14 13


Developing Skills and Abilities 53 1 3 Developing Self-Confidence 47 3 4 Opportunities for Advancement 31 11 5 Good Benefits 49 2 6 Good Starting Pay 46 4 12 Job Security 25 15 14 Keeping Physically Fit 40 6 9 Work Part of the Year 35 8 8 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 36 7 15

Seasonal jobs in the fishing and lumber industry would appear to complement desires to pursue other activities during the year. Rural construction is another source of jobs, but one that may not prove to be reliable in the future. If properly structured, present and future employment opportunities in the mineral and petroleum industries could provide an important source of employment for rural native men. While the tourist industry is seasonal, the likelihood of a substantial interest among native men to take such jobs is probably low given their dissatisfaction with jobs primarily dealing with people, their relatively low interest in working with people they like, and the relatively high importance they attach to obtaining a good starting wage.

Before leaving this important population group, we should mention an alternative explanation for their expressed employment preferences, an explanation which has much different policy implications. Research results. from other studies, both in Alaska and elsewhere, indicate that native Americans tend to have lower educational and professional

20

expectations (Edington et al., 1975; Kuvlesky, 1976). Rather than indicating a true preference, our results could reflect lower expectations, either because such jobs are unavailable or because of a lack of necessary skills.

During 1979, 29 percent of all rural native men in the labor force in our study area were unemployed between one and five months; 24 percent were unemployed for six months or more. Comparable unemployment figures for the population as a whole were 17 and 7 percent, respectively. Forty-three percent of rural native men were dissatisfied with their jobs, compared with 24 percent for the population as a whole, suggesting that preferred jobs were unavailable. Rural native men are also less educated; over half have not completed high school compared to 11 percent of all adults in the study region. Were jobs more plentiful and rural native men better educated, rising employment expectations might affect employment preferences as well. Therefore, it could be a tragic mistake to assume seasonal, low-skill employment will continue to be preferred by many rural native men just as it may be a mistake to assume year-round, career-oriented employment will substitute for employment opportunities which currently permit hunting and fishing activities. Given the lack of sufficient rural employment opportunities of any type, however, we can safely conclude that more jobs per se is the highest priority for rural Alaska. Beyond this, the state could work to improve the fit between remote site work rotation schedules and other rural activities, continue to increase rural educational levels and skills, and expose high school students to as broad a spectrum of potential rural employment opportunities as possible.

Rural Native Women

Along with rural native men, rural native women attach less importance to exercising control on the job and to opportunities for advancement (see Table 6). However, research results on the North Slope suggest that the rapid expansion of employment opportunities in clerical, education, health, and social service occupations in the last decade has been met with enthusiasm by Inupiat women (Kleinfeld, 1981). Labor force participation among women jumped from 23 percent in 1970 to 53 percent in 1977, with 75 percent of the women taking white-collar jobs. Seventeen percent of Inupiat women held professional or managerial positions in 1977. This study also showed that women could double their earnings through education and job advancement while high wages for entry-level blue-collar jobs minimized the advantages of education and career advancement among men.·

The North Slope experience may not be repeated throughout rural Alaska, nor will it even necessarily continue on the North Slope if wage differentials are reduced between skill levels. Since North Slope women increased their employment activity in response to

21

TABLE 6. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF RURAL NATIVE WOMEN






expanding opportunities, however, we think the relatively low importance attached to opportunities to exercise control and to advance on the job by rural native women in our study region may reflect a lack of suitable employment opportunities, a lack of skills, or both.

Rural native women attached more importance to having part of the year off work than any other population group. Among those in the labor force, however, an average of eight months was spent in the labor force. One reason why native women may want to take part of the year off work is a lack of suitable child care arrangements. Nine percent of the rural native women we interviewd who did not work during the previous year said that family responsibilities made it difficult to take a job. We cannot say if these women would have worked if child care were available, nor can we assume that every woman who did work found suitable child care arrangements. However, the link between job satisfaction and child care warrants further examination. Another explanation for the relatively high importance attached to having part of the year off work may be an interest in pursuing other activities as we discussed above for men.

22

Urban Natives

While we know urban native men and women are likely to have somewhat different employment preferences, our sample is too small (55) to examine them reliably. Our sample is disturbingly small even when native men and women are combined, but we think it is important not to completely lose sight of the urban native population in the much larger urban non-Native population. With that said, there are few differences to point out between urban natives and the total population (see Table 7). They share the desire to find interesting work; to develop skills, abilities, and self-confidence with the general population; and to attach somewhat greater importance to opportunities for advancement, good starting pay, and good benefits.

TABLE 7. EHPLOYHENT PREFERENCES OF URBAN NATIVES





Developing Skills and Abilities 66 5 3 Developing Self-Confidence 67 4 4 Opportunities for Advancement 68 3 5 Good Benefits 72 1 6 Good Starting Pay 48 10 12 Job Security 42 14 14 Keeping Physically Fit 45 11 9 Work Part of the Year 52 ·8 8 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 30 15 15

23

Twice as many urban natives as urban non-natives think their jobs are not at all close to the kind of jobs they would like, however (24 versus 12 percent, respectively). Probably a key contributer to job dissatisfaction among urban natives is the low wages many workers receive. Sixteen percent earned under $5.00 an hour in 1979, compared to 8 percent of urban non-natives. Unfortunately, we cannot provide further data which would explain why a relatively high proportion of urban natives are dissatisfied with their job. Given their relatively strong preferences for rewarding employment and the high proportion of low-wage workers, however, we think it likely that urban native employment expectations are high and actual employment opportunities are limited. For this group, then, it appears that the traditional employment strategies of assisting people in obtaining required skills and locating suitable employment are most appropriate. We should also mention that a relatively high proportion of urban natives who did not work in the previous year (11 percent) mentioned that family responsibilities made it difficult for them to find employment. Therefore, low-cost day care facilities probably would improve the ability of urban natives to obtain satisfying jobs.

Urban Non-Native Men

Urban non-native men constitute 41 percent of our weighted sample. Therefore, their preferences greatly shape the employment preferences of the population as a whole. The more interesting comparison is by age since it reveals significant changes may occur during the employment life of an individual. Perhaps most significant is that younger, non-native urban men are 50 percent more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than older men. This fact suggests that job dissatisfaction may in large part be self-correcting. It seems reasonable to expect that many young men find they must first perform an undesirable job in order to later obtain a desired job. We would also expect to find that many initial job choices prove to be less attractive than expected, resulting in job dissatisfaction and job switching.

As Table 8 shows, younger and older men attach about the same importance to most employment preferences. A few differences, however, may help explain the higher rate of job dissatisfaction among younger men. Younger men are more interested in finding work that varies and is exciting. They place the highest priority on developing skills and abilities. Given these preferences and probably matching expectations, it is not surprising to find that a third of urban non-native men between 18 and 35 who were working at the time of the survey were dissatisfied with their jobs. We would expect that many of these men held entry level jobs that did not offer much variation, excitement, or chances to develop new skills. Of those who were dissatisfied with their jobs, 41 percent had worked for less than three years in their current occupations. Significantly, men with college or vocational training are not more likely to be satisfied with their jbbs.

24

TABLE 8. El'1PLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF URBAN NON-NATIVE 1'1EN

Percent Stating Preference is Rank for

Very Important Population Group

Intrinsic Preferences 18-35 36 + 18-35 36 + ---

Type of Work 67 70 2 1 Working with People You Like 57 62 3 2 Being in Control 47 56 7 4 Testing Abilities 46 44 9 9 Variation in Work 44 34 10 11 Excitement 42 30 11 16


Developing Skills and Abilities 70 57 1 3 Developing Self-Confidence 55 56 5 4 Opportunities for Advancement 56 49 4 6 Good Benefits 47 46 7 8 Good Starting Pay 37 34 12 11 Job Security 33 34 15 11 Keeping Physically Fit 49 47 6 7 Work Part of the Year 36 34 13 11 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 36 43 14 10

Two other preferences distinguish younger and older urban nonnative men. First, men over 35 attach somewhat more importance to being in control. Second, and not shown in Table 8, men over 35 are more likely to be satisfied with jobs primarily involving paper or information than younger men (89 versus 65 percent, respectively). These two findings together with those discussed above suggest that many men become increasingly interested in the ability to, as the interview read, "be" in control of things that happen, "be your own boss" and, at the same time, become less interested in variation and excitement on the job. It appears that jobs primarily dealing with paper or information fit these preferences well, although most older, urban non-native men are satisfied with their jobs,, regardless of their type of work.

25

Why are one-out-of-five non-native urban men over 35 dissatisfied with their jobs? Those who are dissatisfied show no significant differences in employment preferences than those who are satisfied, so we would expect that one or more of the most important job preferences shown in Table 8 were not met. Our survey did not gather information on which specific employment preferences were unmet, but we can try to discover more about the characteristics of those who were dissatisfied with their jobs.

Men in this population group who were dissatisfied with their jobs were more likely to earn relatively low wages, to have switched occupations in the last four years, and to have moved to Alaska in the last three years (see Table 9). In many respects, then, these dissatisfied men were like their younger counterparts: recent entrants to the local labor force and relatively inexperienced in their occupations. Therefore, the policy implications are again that job dissatisfaction among older, urban non-native men is largely self-correcting.

TABLE 9. CHARACTERISTICS OF OLDER URBAN NON-NATIVE MEN BY JOB SATISFACTION

Wage

Under $10/hour $10/hour or more

Years in Occupation

Less than Five Five or More

Length of Residence

One-to-Three Years

in

More than Three Years

Alaska

(percent)

Job Satisfaction

Satisfied Dissatisfied

26

21 79

100

13 87

100

9 91

100

40 60

100

36 64

100

24 76

100

Urban Non-Native Women

Younger non-native urban women, like their male counterparts, appear also to have strong employment preferences and high expectations (see Table 10). Again, as in the case of men, age seems to temper this enthusiasm somewhat although employment is still seen as a source of diverse personal benefits. The pattern of strong employment preferences coupled with relatively high job dissatisfaction applies to women as well as to men, with 29 percent of women between 18 and 35 being dissatisfied, compared to 16 percent of women over 35.

The most striking factor associated with job dissatisfaction among younger women is low wages. Sixteen percent of working younger urban non-native women, more than any other group, earned less than $5.00 per hour in 1979. Of those dissatisfied with their jobs, 38 percent were earning under $5. 00 per hour, compared to 11 percent of those who were satisfied (see Table 11).

TABLE 10. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF URBAN NON-NATIVE WOMEN


Very Important Population Group

Intrinsic Preferences 18-35 36 + 18-35 36 + --- ---

Type of Work 77 73 1 1 Working with People You Like 77 62 1 2 Being in Control 47 41 8 7 Tepting Abilities 53 34 6 10 Variation in Work 45 29 9 13 Excitement 39 29 12 13


Developing Skills and Abilities 73 56 3 4 Developing Self-Confidence 69 58 4 3 Opportunities for Advancement 58 41 5 6 Good Benefits 51 56 7 4 Good Starting Pay 41 35 11 12 J·ob Security 33 36 14 9 Keeping Physically Fit 37 40 13 8 Work Part of the Year 42 36 10 10 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 18 24 15 15

27

TABLE 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUNGER URBAN NON-NATIVE WOMEN BY JOB SATISFACTION

Wage


Years in Occupation

Less than Three Three or More

Length of Residence

One-to-Two Years More than Two Years

in Alaska

Months on Current Job

Less than Six Months Six Months or More

Education

High School or Less More than High School

(percent)

Job Satisfaction

28

Satisfied

11 89

100

37 63

100

18 82

100

31 69

100

44 56

100

Dissatisfied

38 62

100 .

54 46

100

30 70

100

48 52

100

59 41

100

We believe low wages also largely account for an apparent shift with age among women from a preference for jobs primarily dealing with people to a preference for jobs involving paper and information. In a recent study of urban non-native high school students, results showed that most women preferred a job primarily involving people (McDiarmid and Kleinfeld, 1982). In our study, 64 percent of the younger women holding such jobs were satisfied, compared with 77 percent for women holding jobs primarily dealing with paper and information or things and 74 percent for women primarily working with things. Among women over 35, satisfaction with jobs dealing mostly with people dropped to 46 percent. This has unfortunate implications for Alaska's increasingly service-oriented economy since our ability to compete with outside firms in the service industry depends on attracting and keeping high quality labor. If wage rates are too low, more experience and skilled workers may leave the industry. At the same time, higher wage rates could make the cost of Alaskan services noncompetitive with that of outside firms.

The results displayed on Table 11 show that a disproportionate number of dissatisfied younger women were new entrants to the labor force, to an occupation, or to a specific job. In part, these conditions are associated with low wages. In addition, however, we would expect relatively more women in entry-level positions to find their jobs unattractive either because of unanticipated problems or because the job is only a necessary stepping stone to something better. Again, we see that the process of finding a _satisfying job takes time.

The final comparison displayed in Table 11 indicates that college or vocational training still makes a difference in job satisfaction for younger women, if not younger men. Turning now to women over 35, education continues to strongly relate to job satisfaction while wages show less of a correlation (see Table 12). As with men, new entrants into an occupation appear to experience the same problem as younger women. Unlike men, however, recent in-migrant women may be somewhat more likely to be satisfied with their job. We suspect this may be due to the influence of currently heavy demands for experienced clerical workers on wage rate differentials between Alaska and the Northwest.

Rural Non-Native Men

Rural non-native men are much more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than urban non-native men (89 versus 74, respectively). Employment satisfaction and employment preferences differ little by a_ge. Compared to the norm, rural non-native men attach more importance to being in control and less importance to career advancement opportunities (see Table 13). The quest of autonomy appears to underlie many non-native men's motivations for living in rural Alaska, with 50 percent saying that the "chance to be independent, to start something new" is very important to them.

29

TABLE 12. CHARACTERISTICS OF OLDER URBAN WOMEN BY JOB SATISFACTION

Wage


Years in OccuEation

Less than Five Five or More

Length of Residence

One-to-Three Years

in

More than Three Years

Years of Education

Less than High School High School or More

Alaska

(percent)

Job Satisfaction

30

Satisfied

65 35

100

30 70

100

13 87

100

10 90

100

Dissatisfied

77 23

100

56 44

100

6 94

100

38 62

100

TABLE 13. EHPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF RURAL NON-NATIVE HEN






Like rural native men, they also have important non-employment reasons for living where they do. Host important among these are to get away from urban problems and to be close to a wilderness environment. Given their relatively high level of job satisfaction, it appears that those who can find jobs in rural Alaska are able to meet most of their employment and non-employment goals. However, the lack of jobs does present a significant problem for rural non-native men (although not as great as for native men), as indicated by the fact that almost 3,000 of a total of 13,000 rural men experienced unemployment in the year prior to the survey.

31

Rural Non-Native Women

Younger urban and rural non-native women have much in common. They both attach relatively more importance to personal development and to career advancement opportunities than do women over 35. The interest in career advancement opportunities is not among the most important employment preferences for any other rural population. Why are rural non-native younger women different? We' re not sure but think that young school teachers, health and social service professionals, and community development planners find rural jobs to be relatively good opportunities to gain experience. To actually advance, however, most of these women would later have to migrate to urban centers.

Rural non-native women over 35 appear to have a somewhat different agenda of employment preferences. The two most interesting differences are a relatively greater interest in excitement and opportunities to keep physically fit.

TABLE 14. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES OF RURAL NON-NATIVE WOMEN


Very_ Important Population Grou:e

Intrinsic Preferences 18-35 36 + 18-35 36 +

Type of Work 61 67 3 1 Working with People You Like 68 1 2 Being in Control 46 48 9 5 Testing Abilities 40 38 10 9 Variation in Work 39 26 11 13 Excitement 19 39 14 8


Developing Skills and Abilities 58 42 4 7 Developing Self-Confidence 66 52 2 4 Opportunities for Advancement 52 29 5 11 Good Benefits 50 48 6 5 Good Starting Pay 38 25 12 14 Job Security 37 30 13 10 Keeping Physically Fit 49 59 8 3 Work Part of the Year 50 27 6 12 Time Off to Hunt and Fish 19 21 14 15

32

Summary

Employment conditions vary more than employment preferences among Alaskan population groups. It is the lack of employment more than the lack of a desired type of job that accounts for most job dissatisfaction. Population groups living in areas with relatively few employment opportunities and/or who find it difficult to compete for jobs have relatively high rates of unemployment and job dissatisfaction (see Table 15). The most important potential employment policies are, therefore, the classic ones: create more employment and improve the ability of Alaskans to compete for jobs.

Beyond reaffirming the importance of job opportunities and job skills, our comparison of employment preferences suggests that many rural native men will continue to look for jobs which also afford opportunities to pursue other activities. Local construction employment may be ideal in this regard, but it is obviously not a selfsupporting industry. For much of rural Alaska, the only alternatives to local construction employment are (or may be) jobs associated with resource . developments. If these jobs are not structured to permit workers to pursue other activities that are important to them or if they place workers beside individuals who hold much different values, beliefs, and attitudes, the jobs will probably not prove to be an effective alternative for rural native men. The state could work with industry to explore ways of structuring employment to handle periodic work absences and to increase opportunities for native men to work together.

Among urban women, low wages appear to cause a significant amount of job dissatisfaction. There may be little the state can do to raise private wage rates beyond paying its own employees higher wages (which it already does).

Finally, our results suggest that job dissatisfaction is common among entrants to the labor force, recent migrants, and among those changing occupations. Job dissatisfaction appears to decrease with experience and, thus, is largely self-correcting. Except for the above issues, we see little reason for state intervention beyond the traditional objectives of economic and human resource development.

33

TABLE 15. Sillfr1ARY OF EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS AND RELEVANT EMPLOYl'fENT POLICIES FOR ALASKAN POPULATION GROUPS

Population Group

Rural Native Men

Proportion Dissatisfied

with their Jobs

Rural Native Women

Urban Natives

Urban Non-Native Men 18 to 35 36 and older

Urban Non-Native Women 18 to 35 36 and older

Rural Non-Native Men 18 to 35 36 and older

Rural Non-Native Women 18 to 35 36 and older

43%

16%

32%

32% 20%

29% 15%

13% 9%

25% 23%

34

Avg. Number of Months Relevant Unemployed Employment Policies

3.1 • more jobs

1.7

1.5

1.1 0.7

1. 3 0.7

1.0 1. 4

1.5 0.4

• structure jobs to allow time off

• structure jobs to allow men from same area to work together

• improve job skills • broaden exposure to

job types

• more jobs • provide child care

opportunities

• improve job skills • help locate employment • increase minimum wage • provide child care

opportunities

• job dissatisfaction and unemployment largely self-correcting

• increase minimum wage • otherwise, job dis

satisfaction and unemployment largely self-correcting

e more jobs

• more jobs

REFERENCES

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Willard L. Rodgers. 1976, The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfac"=" tions, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Edington, Everett, Timothy J. Pettibone, Jane E. Heldt. 1975. Educational Aspirations and Expectations for Rural and Minority Youth in New Mexico, Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University, Department of Educational Administration.

Kilpatrick, Franklin P., et al. 1964. The Image of the Federal Service, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.

Kleinfeld, Judith. 1981. Different Paths of Inupiat Men and Women in the Wage Economy, Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, 18, 1:1-28, Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Kupfer, George, and Charles W. Hobart. 1978. Impact of Oil Exploration Work on an Inupiat Community, Arctic Anthropology, XV-1:58-66.

Kuvlesky, William P., and Everett D. Edington. 1976. Ethnic Group Identity and Occupational Status Projections of Teenage Boys and Girls: Mexican American, Black, Native American, and Anglo Youth, paper presented at the Southwest Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas.

McDiarmid, Bill, and Judith Kleinfeld (forthcoming). " . . Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief": The Educational and Occupational Aspirations, Plans, and Preferences of Eskimo Students on the Lower Yukon, Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Rosenberg, M. 1957. Occupations and Values, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Rubin, Zick. 1973. Liking and Loving: An Introduction to Social Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Zytowski, D. 1980. The Concept of Work Values, Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 18:176-186.

35

36

Documents

WHAT KIND OF JOBS DO ALASKANS WANT? A STUDY OF … · 2017. 5. 3. · Urban Natives . . . 23 Urban Non-Native Men 24 Urban ... simply looking for the highest paid job with the best