Description of this paper

Job Satisfaction and Self-Esteem




Journal of Career Development;;Men in Families: Job Satisfaction and Self-Esteem;Ada L. Sinacore and F. zge Akali;Journal of Career Development 2000 27: 1;DOI: 10.1177/089484530002700101;The online version of this article can be found at;;Published by;;On behalf of;University of Missouri-Columbia;Additional services and information for Journal of Career Development can be found at;Email Alerts:;Subscriptions:;Reprints:;Permissions:;Citations:;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;Men in Families;Job Satisfaction and Self-Esteem;Ada L. Sinacore;F. &Özge Ak&çali;McGill;University;This study assesses the effects of the family environment on mens job satisfaction and self-esteem. The results indicate that mens family environment;as measured by the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1974) predicts;only three aspects of job satisfaction as measured by the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendal, & Hulin, 1975). In addition, results indicate that the;family environment has a limited effect on mens self-esteem as measured, by;the Four Component Self-Esteem Scale (Hampilos, 1988). The authors conclude that the limited relationship between these measures may be due to;mens lack of involvement in their family and that men continue to have a;traditional view of their role in the family as that of provider and disciplinarian. Implications for counseling are discussed.;KEY WORDS;job satisfaction;men;and;work;men;and self-esteem.;Family and Work;Historically and socially mens work roles have been considered prior foundational, while other roles, including marital and familial, have been considered secondary (Weiss, 1990). Whether or not the;primacy of work roles for men has changed over time is a growing;area of inquiry. Research in this area indicates that for many men;the family and work realms are linked through the &&dquo;provider role.&&dquo;That is, mens work generally serves to provide financially for their;mary;Address correspondence to Ada L. Sinacore, McGill University, 3700 McTavish;Street, Montreal, H3A 1Y2 Canada.;1;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;2;(Bernard, 1~81, Lamb, Pleck, & Levine, 1987). Thus, being a;&&dquo;good provider&&dquo; is a way in which many men identify their primary;role and main contribution to the family, and as such are less involved;in other family work such as housework and childcare (Perry-Jenfamilies;kins & Crouter, 1990).;Research indicates that mens involvement in the family remains;low (Hochschild, 1989) and that women continue to take more responsibility for the family and spend more time in family activities than;do men (Duxbury, Higgins, & Lee, 1994). Research on mens multiple;roles indicates that men do not experience a trade-off between work;and family roles, and that they tend to see their roles as mutually;exclusive and put their career role first (DiBenedetto & Tittle, 1990).;Those men who do become engaged in family activities (e.g., picking;children up form daycare) develop identities linked to their family;roles but still make minor accommodations to their work life for family;(Bielby & Bielby, 1989). Although men may not be equally sharing the;responsibilities of the family behaviourally, it has been suggested that;men are emotionally and personally involved in both family and work;value these roles and that the quality of experience in both contribute;equally to mens mental health (Barnett, Marshall, && Pleck, 1992;Weiss, 1990).;Nevertheless, the broader effect of family;environment;on;mens;work experience has been minimally researched. If as some researchers have claimed that men equally involved with their work and families, then it stands to reason that family environment would have an;effect on work experience and levels of job satisfaction. If on the other;hand, men view family and work roles as mutually exclusive, then one;may not have an effect on the other. Thus, our first research question;is: What are the effects of the family environment on job satisfaction?;Men and Self-Esteem;Occupational factors have been considered central to mens self-esteem (Walsh & Taylor, 1982), with some researchers suggesting that;it is only when mens work fails to provide self-esteem that men compensate by investing more in their families (Gecas & Seff, 1990). To;the contrary, Walsh and Taylor (1982) found that occupational prestige accounts for under 4% the variance in global self-esteem, implying;that mens self-esteem is not based primarily in obtaining prestigious;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;3;jobs;but that other;occupational;factors may contribute to mens self-;esteem.;considering the relationship between work and family to selfthe two areas are often viewed as mutually exclusive or diesteem;chotomous. For example, Gecas and Seff (1990) suggest that men may;hold either work or family as central to their lives, and define themselves primarily through one or the other. They found that for men;who held work as central to their self-definition, work conditions and;social class had a stronger effect on self-esteem than did family. However, for men who held family as central, family conditions such as;home satisfaction and control at home had stronger effects on selfesteem than did work. In addition, men whose work conditions were;poor compensated for their deteriorating self-esteem by making family;more central to their self-definition. Contrary to this finding, a study;of highly educated businessmen indicated that those men who were;family-oriented and accommodated their work for family had reduced;self-esteem, possibly related to having less success professionally;(Lamb, Pleck, & Levine, 1987).;Few studies have examined how specific aspects of mens family role;contribute to self-esteem. Those that have examined the effect of family on self-esteem indicate that family factors can positively affect;mens self-esteem and that the psychological well-being of men in;dual-career couples is closely tied to the quality of their parental role;(Barnett, Brennan, & Marshall, 1994). Thus, our second research;question is: What are the effects of the family environment on mens;self-esteem?;When;Method;Procedure;A convenience sample of participants was recruited through advertisements at community organizations, churches, and through advertisements posted around in a small suburban area in the midwest.;One-hundred and twenty individuals responded to the advertisements;and were mailed a demographics survey sheet and the measures employed in the study. A 60% return rate was obtained, resulting in a;sample size of 72 fathers. Their ages ranged from 25 to 60 years, with;the majority between the ages of 31 to 40 (Mean 33). Sixty-two percent of the men were White, 4% were Black, and 25% were Hispanic.;=;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;4;Eighty-three percent of the men were married for the first or second;time and the length of the marriages was 1 to 10 years. All of the men;in the study had at least one child under the age of 18 years. The;majority were employed in white collar occupations including academic, clerical, sales;professional positions.;regression analyses, which allows an evaluation of every;independent variables particular contribution to the prediction of the;dependent variable(s) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), were performed to;predict the effects of the various aspects of the family environment on;mens job satisfaction and self-esteem.;There are two major limitations in this study. First, the small sample size and the fact that it was a convenience and not a random sample. The men who volunteered for the study may have been a homogenous group limiting the generalizability of the results. A second;limitation, is that there is some risk for Type 1 error given the number;of statistical tests run. However, the results warrant consideration.;or;Standard;Instruments;Descriptive Index. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), developed by;Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969/1975), is a widely used instrument;which operationally defines six separate components of job satisfaction: (a) Work on Present Job, (b) Present Pay, (c) Opportunities for;Promotion, (d) Supervision on Present Job, (e) People on your Present;Job, and (f) Job in General. Each scale consists of a list of adjectives;or short phrases. Respondents are instructed to indicate whether or;not the word or phrase applies to their job by inserting Y (yes), N (no);or? (undecided). Smith et al. reported an average reliability coefficient;for the five scales of r.79 for split-half estimates. Higher internal;Job;=;consistency reliabilities were found for each of the scales: work (r;.84), pay (r.80), promotion (r.86), and coworkers (r.88).;=;=;=;=;Component Self-Esteem Scale (FCSS). The FCSS, developed by;Hampilos (1988), purports to measure four components of self-esteem;(a) Inner Worth, which arises from within oneself and is ones wish to;value oneself, (b) Inner Competence, which arises from within oneself;and depends on ones judgement of ones sense of competence, (c) External Worth, which results from ones evaluation of the opinions and;attitudes held by others, and (d) External Competence, which results;from ones evaluation of the opinions and attitudes held by others re-;Four;garding;ones competence. The FCSS;was;chosen because of its focus;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;5;four separate aspects of self-esteem as opposed to global selfesteem which is measured by more popular scales. Research indicates;that each of the subscales are valid and reliable, with a minimum;coefficient alpha of r =.90 (Hampilos, 1988).;on;Family Environment Scale, The Real Form. The Family Environment;Scale (FES, Form R) provides a measure of the social-environmental;characteristics of all types of families. Form R purports to measure;of their conjugal and nuclear family environments. The 10 subscales of the FES are: (a) Cohesion-the degree;of commitment, help, and support family members provide for one;another, (b) Expressiveness-the extent to which family members;are encouraged to act openly and to express their feelings directly;(c) Conflict-the amount of openly expressed anger, aggression and;conflict among family members, (d) Independence-the extent to;which family members are assertive, self-sufficient, and make their;own choices, (e) Achievement Orientation-the extent to which activities such as school and work are cast into a competitive framework, (f) Intellectual-Cultural Orientation-the degree of interest in;political, social, intellectual, and cultural activities, (g) Active Recreational Orientation-the extent of participation in social and recreational activities, (h) Moral-Religious Reasoning-the degree of;emphasis on ethical and religious issues and values, (i) Organization-the degree of importance of clear organization and structure in;planning family activities and responsibilities, and (j) Control-the;extent to which set rules and procedures are used to run the family;(Moos & Moos, 1974).;The FES was selected because of its focus on both individual and;relational aspects of the family. Research indicates that it is a reliable;(coefficients range from r.68 to r.86) and valid measure (Fowler;1982, Moos & Moos, 1974).;peoples perceptions;=;=;Results;Prior to data analysis, the JDI, the FES, and the FCSS scales were;examined through SPSS FREQUENCIES for accuracy of data entry;missing values, and fit between their distributions and the assumptions of multivariate analysis. All missing values were replaced by the;mean of the particular variable. In order to reduce the effects of skewness and outliers, a reflect and square root transformation (Tabach-;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010;6;nick;Fidell, 1989) was used on the measures of job satisfaction, self-;esteem and;family environment. The transformed variables are Work;Present Job (WP), People on Present Job (COWORK), Job in General (JOBGEN), Cohesion (COH), and Inner Worth (IW). Additionally;based on Tabachnick and Fidells suggestion, we concluded that no;problems with multicollinearity with the independent variables were;found, since none of the correlations among the independent variables;exceeded r =.70.;on;Family Environment and Job Satisfaction;Standard regression analyses were performed using SPSS to examine whether the various aspects of the family environment predict aspects of mens job satisfaction. Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations of the scores on each scale, and the correlations;between the variables involved in the JDI, FCSS and FES.;Regression results indicate that the scales of the FES significantly;predict several aspects of job satisfaction. Table 2 displays the R, R2;adjusted R2, and F values. Significant results were obtained for Work;on Present Job [WP, F(10,61) = 2.06, p <.05];Promotion [PROM;F(10,61) = 2.65, p <.01], and Supervision [SUP, F(10,61) 2.91, p;=;.005].;Only;two of the FES;scales, namely Organization (ORG, sr2;=;.07);and Control (CTRL, sr~ =.06), contributed significantly to predict;mens satisfaction with their work scores as they were transformed;with a reflect and square root method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).;The FES scales in combination contributed another.07 in shared variability. Altogether, 25% (13% adjusted) of the variability in mens satisfaction with their work was predicted by knowing scores on the FES;scales.;For the second significant multiple regression equation, transformed scores of Cohesion (COH, sr~ =.04) and scores on Control;(CTRL, sr.09) contributed significantly to prediction of mens satisfaction with their opportunities for promotion. In combination, the 10;FES scales contributed another.17 in shared variance.;Finally, scores on Control (CTRL, sr2.23) contributed significantly;to prediction of mens satisfaction with their supervision. The shared;variance with all 10 scales of the FES scale was.09. Therefore, 32%;(21% adjusted) of the variability in mens satisfaction with their supervision was predicted by knowing scores on the FES scales.;=;=;Downloaded from at UNIV OF NEW BRUNSWICK on October 30, 2010,_&&dquo;q~;1&&dquo;.i S3~ U;


Paper#35474 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37