'Academy of Management Joumai 1984. Vol; 27, No. 3, 591-602.

Faculty Satisfaction with Pay and Other Job Dimensions Under Union and Nonunion Conditions
LUIS R. GOMEZ-MEJIA University of Florida DAVID B. BALKIN Northeastern University

This study examines the relationship of faculty unionism on satisfaction with pay and other job dimensions. Union faculty were more satisfied with their pay than were nonunion faculty. Other significant determinants of faculty pay satisfaction were pay level, tenure, job experience, and sex. With the exception of pay, unionization was unrelated to other dimensions of" job satisfaction. The past decade has seen an enormous increase in the number of unionized institutions in higher education. In 1969 only 24 institutions of higher education had unionized faculties. By 1979, with the exception of law and medical schools, a total of 227 institutions were unionized, representing about 86,000 professors. The vast majority of these colleges and universities were publicly owned and operated, 161 out of 227. In relative terms, about 30 percent of all public and 5 percent of all private institutions had faculty unions in 1979 (Garbarino, 1980). Faculty unionism replaces the collegial governance system with one based on the process of collective bargaining for determining wages, hours, and conditions of employment. This significant change in employer-employee relations in vast areas of higher education has spawned an emerging body of research literature. This literature has dealt with issues such as the extent of unionization (Garbarino, 1980); union structure (Bognanno & Suntrup, 1975; Garbarino & Lawler, 1978); faculty strikes (Aussieker, 1976); faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining (Allen & Keaveny, 1981); and the relationship between faculty unionism and organizational performance (Cameron, 1982). A few studies have examined factors related to faculty interest in unionizing. Research addressing reasons for forming unions suggests that faculty members organize because of job dissatisfaction, primarily
591

1978). and discrepancy theory in order to explain the determinants of pay satisfaction. Although the econometric evidence on the impact of faculty unions on relative wages is unclear at this point. work content) also will be explored. a person who feels he/she has relatively high personal job inputs. and (d) pay history. data concerning university faculty indicate that when the effects of salary and satisfaction with pay are taken into account. In this formulation. Although pay satisfaction is the focal point of this paper. while controlling for the effect of other correlates of pay satisfaction.g. Bigoness. 1981). lower nonmonetary outcomes. the relationship between faculty unionism and other job satisfaction dimensions (e.. Most unions introduce the grievance procedure as a mechanism to determine justice and increased security to the faculty. This model combines equity. The best known model of pay satisfaction was developed by Lawler (1971). pay history. In fact. First. The presence of a union may alter faculty perceptions of pay satisfaction by impacting some of the determinants of pay satisfaction suggested in the Lawler model. the greater the reported level of pay satisfaction. perceived pay of referent other. Dissatisfaction results when the amount the person receives is perceived to be less than the amount the person feels he or she should receive. (b) perceived job demands. and higher past earnings will feel he/she should receive a relatively high level of pay. 1978). a more demanding job. Weiner. Empirical research generally has supported Lawler's hypothesis. Second. perceived amount of pay received. other measures make virtually no contribution to explaining the felt need for a union (Allen & Keaveny. The latter perception is a function of (a) perceived personal job inputs. Surprisingly. 1974. is said to be a function of pay level. (c) nonmonetary outcomes from work. 1976.592 Academy of Management Joumai September with economic aspects of the work situation (Feuille & Blandin. Individual faculty members may perceive this protection as a form of . 1980). little research has been done on the extent to which faculty pay satisfaction may be attributed to the presence or absence of a union. promotions. The greater the clarity or degree of perceived understanding of criteria used to determine pay and the greater the perceived accuracy and consistency of pay decisions. The second component of the model. although the addition of pay-system administration variables substantially improves explained variance in pay satisfaction (Dyer & Theriault. the union may positively affect the perceived nonmonetary outcomes. The model predicts that. This study was designed to close this research gap by examining the impact of faculty unionism (as an independent variabie) on pay satisfaction (as a dependent variable). and. pay satisfaction results when there is a congruence between the amount of pay a person feels he/she should receive and the amount of pay he/she feels is being received. to a lesser extent. the belief that unions can use their bargaining strength to raise wages above the nonunion level is deeply ingreiined (Mitchell. social comparison. other things equal. the union may alter the perception of "pay received" by affecting pay level and pay history of faculty members.

The primary purpose of the present study is to assess empirically the relationship between the presence or absence of a faculty union and the level of faculty pay satisfaction.1984 Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 593 nonmonetary compensation that positively affects the faculty perceptions of pay fairness. years of experience (Ronan & Organt. and related applied fields have been found least receptive to professional unionism (Feuille & Blandin. Faculty collective bargaining has shifted the iocus of decision about the conditions of work and work expectations to the bargaining table (Birnbaum. and they fear that they may have more to lose by the leveling effect following the introduction of collective bargaining (Bigoness. In general. complete with decision making criteria. 1978). and open to general scrutiny. while controlling for other correlates of pay satisfaction identified in the literature. followed by humanists and natural scientists. 1978). priorities for summer teaching. intercoUege or departmental budget allocations. distribution of scarce research funds. For example. job content. 1981). 1980). the union may alter the perceptions of job demands. and so on are in many instances discussed and formalized within the context of negotiation settings. age (Dreher. 1973). 1976). 1981). many academic contracts have provisions that permit individual faculty members to appeal adverse decisions and even to take the decision "outside" to be tried before an impartial arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Professors in the fields of business. Kochan and Helfman (1981) found that among hourly workers union members were more satisfied with their pay. Social scientists have been found to be most favorable toward collective bargaining. and adequacy of resources. There is some research that suggests that faculty members in fields with a "high market" demand. depending on market conditions. 1978. Faculty unions have forced personnel reviews for pay into a more systematic framework. course loads. sex (Sauser & York. 1974). and tenure (Allen & Keaveny. issues involving educational and research programs. engineering. faculty unions are likely to have a major impact on the perceptions of pay-system administration. than Deans in unionized universities. promotion opportunities. those in the high market groups receive higher salaries than do those in the low market groups. Dyer & Theriault. but less satisfied with supervision. The control variables included in the study are present salary (Bigoness. and facing easy access to alternative nonacademic jobs in industry. Deans may have more flexibility to adjust pay levels for certain faculty groups. Further. This study also explores the extent to which faculty unions may have an effect on other job satisfaction dimensions. faculty reductions. subjects in the high market fields would be expected to be most apprehensive regarding such a prospect. Fourth. appear to have the most negative attitudes toward collective bargaining (Ladd & Lipset. Third. For some faculty groups the union may have a depressing effect on pay satisfaction. Understandably. These authors advanced the hypothesis that unionized workers may trade off higher satisfaction . consulting policy. job context. 1973). In a nonunion university.

The nonunion schools consisted of the regional university cluster campuses of the University of Wisconsin system. This is an important factor in choosing a research site because the level of faculty organizing activity is highly dependent on the existence of enabling labor laws (Garbarino. the locations were highly comparable for the selected schools. Cloud for the Minnesota system.594 Academy of Management Journal • September with "bread and butter" issues in exchange for reduced satisfaction with other dimensions of their jobs. Fourth. the college deans report to the vice-president for academic affairs. with an adrninistrative head (or chancellor) for all campuses. the multicampus university systems in both states operate under virtually identical administrative structures. Direct faculty governance (e. All campuses were located in cities of less than 60. & Estenson. Bemidji. Third. the institutional characteristics of the campuses were closely matched. Cost of living. Bognanno. Three campuses of each of these university systems were chosen for the study (Mankato. This is an important element affecting the generalizability of the study because faculty unions are almost exclusively associated with four-year "teaching" schools (Davey. These locations were chosen for a variety of reasons. Eau Claire.g. both Minnesota and Wisconsin have a public sector bargaining law permitting faculty organizing. through a university senate or a faculty committee structure within each campus) plays a minor role in both college systems. The close match in governance structure between both research sites is important to this study because differences in organizational characteristics may . 1980).. and general environmental conditions also were similar. and Oshkosh for the Wisconsin system). The union system is the Minnesota State College system. La Crosse. the research questions being asked here are: (1) Does the union positively influence the level of faculty pay satisfaction? (2) Are there greater differences in pay satisfaction between "high" and "low" market faculty groups under union versus nonunion conditions? (3) What factors moderate the relationship between the presence of a faculty union and pay satisfaction? (4) Do faculty unions exhibit a differential impact on pay satisfaction versus other dimensions of job satisfaction? Method Research Site The research site selected for this study consisted of a union university system (Minnesota) and a nonunion university system (Wisconsin) in the upper midvyest region. unemployment rate. Each school is run by a president under the authority of a state-wide university board appointed by the Governor. 1982). Within each campus. All campuses in the study were four-year degree granting public sector institutions at which teaching is the primary emphasis. In summary. First.000 population and not adjacent to any large metropolitan areas. who in turn reports to the president. Second. which is organized by the National Education Association (NEA). and St.

263 were returned.1 41-50 30.1984 Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 595 be related to both the presence or absence of faculty unions as well as pay satisfaction. Marketing.6 23.3 Over 50 20.0 31-40 30.9 32. Sample The survey population from each school was randomly selected from the faculty listings in Liberal Arts and Business Administration.0 28.5 60.5 22.4 24.A. A comparison of the respondents and population characteristics for the six schools showed a close match in terms of sex.3 33. Finance.5 27. and age (Table 1). and four contracts had already been negotiated when the data for this study were collected. Management.8 73.6 "Sample of respondents includes 140 faculty members from Liberal Arts (English. tenure.7 _^__ 13. Table 1 Summary of Demographic Characteristics for Respondents and University Faculty Population* Demographic Characteristics Male Female Rank Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Tenure Respondents Sample % (N=263)* 77.4 12. Therefore. or professional degree Ph.2 University Population » 76. academic rank. and Computer Science). educational level.1 25. Education. enough time had elapsed in the Minnesota system for the effects of the union on job satisfaction to be detected.5 26. . There thus were few demographic differences between respondents and the faculty population of these schools.9 39.1 72. Of the 535 questionnaires distributed.5 12. This breakdown allowed one to test for differences in pay satisfaction between "low" (Liberal Arts) and "high" (Business Administration) market groups under union and nonunion conditions. the Minnesota system has been unionized since 1975. Accounting. the remainder were in nonunion schools.D. Social Sciences.2 35. and Foreign Languages) and 123 from Business Adnunistration (Economics.5 Sex No Yes Educational level M.3 27.0 25.2 percent.2 38. 48 percent worked in the union system.1 21.8 61. consisting of 140 from Liberal Arts and 123 from Business Administration. This represented an overall response rate of 49. Humanities. Fifth. Age Under 30 18. Of the respondents.

England. Sex was coded one for male and zero for females. future pay expectations. and the way pay raises are given. 1967)." A subsequent reliability analysis indicated a very high Cronbach alpha for all nine items (. Four items were added to the MSQ pay scale to measure satisfaction with benefits. These four questions were included in the survey to obtain a broader measure of the pay satisfaction variable. and pay level for the nine-month 1981-1982 academic year. supervision. In addition to pay. The demographic continuous data were obtained in the survey by selfreport of years of seniority. The response format consisted of the MSQ 5-point Likert scale.596 Academy of Management Journal September Measures The pay satisfaction scale consisted of nine items. the union variable also was dichotomized into one for union and zero for nonunion faculty.516 for "benefits" to . The responses to categorical questions were treated as dummy variables. Liberal Arts was coded as one and Business Administration as zero. These consisted of the following MSQ scales: satisfaction with promotional opportunities. All regression equations . Analysis Three separate regression equations were calculated with pay satisfaction as the dependent variable. & Lofquist.4%). job context. 1976). years of experience.066. and resource adequacy. pay satisfaction in the present study was treated as a unitary variable computed by unit weighing and adding the responses to the nine items.94). Finally. years of age. Dawis. The first one included the entire faculty sample (iV=263) and was designed to determine the extent to which the union coefficient was significant after controlling for the effect of other variables in the equation. with the factor loadings ranging from . Tenured faculty were coded as one. job content. cost of living adjustments. The remaining two equations were calculated for the union {N= 127) and nonunion (7V= 136) samples to ascertain whether or not the regression coefficients differed for the faculty group membership variable under union versus nonunion conditions.904 for "my present salary. These dimensions are identical to those utilized by Kochan and Helfman (1981) in their study of unions' effect on job satisfaction among hourly workers. The nine pay satisfaction items were factor analyzed by the principal axis method with the squared multiple correlation as the estimate of communality (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. five of which were selected from the pay scale of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss. Based on this psychometric evidence. five other measures of job satisfaction were used in the study. A plot of eigenvalues indicated one common factor exceeding the criterion of 1 (eigenvalue=6. percent of common variance=67. and untenured faculty were coded as zero. An orthogonal varimax rotation indicated that all nine items loaded highly on a single factor.

38 .05 .11 -.04 -.05 . The age and faculty group variables were not significant.06 A«e . job context.48 . Table 3. 10. 8.01 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Pay satisfaction — Union .38 — .02 .09 .36 . a finding that agrees with most of the pay satisfaction literature (Dyer. 5. Also. the indirect effect (. Schwab. The most significant control variable was pay level ( p s .13 Promotion . job content.03 Job content .06 -. The decomposition of the direct and indirect effects of the union variable on pay satisfaction via pay level as an intervening variable indicated that the direct effect (. 13. 1975).23 -.04 Job context .06 -.01 .19 . pay level. The intercorrelation matrix is given in Table 2.01 — Pay level . age.O5.56 .20 .04 . the union variable increases the variance explained from 18 percent to 21 percent when inserted last in the analysis. and resource adequacy was tested via a separate regression equation against each of the corresponding MSQ scales. 2.02 .04 .004) did not attain statistical significance.42 — Results The findings of the regression analysis for the pay satisfaction scale are summarized in Table 3. 9.60 .68 — .13 — . 4. and tenure as control variables. 17 . years of experience.38 Sex -.53 . 1973).20 . 12.06 .23 .25 — Faculty group .01 Resource adequacy .47 -. supervision.01).22 .17 . Other control variables reaching statistical significance included sex.04 35 31 32 — .37 -.01 .08 .03 — . The union's impact on faculty satisfaction with promotion. Table 2 Intercorrelation Matrix (iV=263) Variables 1.34 -.61 — . and years of experience.147) was significant atp^. As can be seen in column 1.06 .10 -.07 -.46 — . 7.02 -. & Theriault.45 .01 .04 Supervision . 1976.02 .45 .01 .03 — .06 .05 .39 .40 . 11.001). 3.09 -. An analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the union on pay satisfaction with pay level as an intervening variable also was conducted on the entire faculty sample using the standard formula (Kerlinger & Pedhazar.16 -.46 Tenure .04 .11 .55 . while controlling for pay level and other demographic characteristics.12. Nash & Carroll. 6.31 Years experience at institution . indicating that union faculty members were more satisfied with their pay than were nonunion faculty members when controlling for the effects of other determinants of pay satisfaction. The regression coefficient for the union variable was positive and significant ( p s . .1984 Oomez-Mejia and Balkin 597 included sex. the overall regression model explained 21 percent of the variance {]R?) of pay satisfaction. tenure.13 .42 — .17 .

the pay level variable was highly significant and positive ( p ^ . Despite the low bivariate correlations between the predictor variables (Table 2) a test for first and second order interactions was completed in order to preclude the threat of multicoUinearity in interpreting the regression results.013) Tenure -.598 Academy of Management Journal September Table 3 Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors for the Determinants of Faculty Pay Satisfaction Under Union and Nonunion Conditions . Friedlander. .50 "Adding union as the last variable in regression increases the R^ from .316*** (. and other demographic variables on various dimensions of job satisfaction.081) .103) .091 (133) (.003 -. . As expected.051) -. Columns 2 and 3 in Table 3 summarize the two separate regression equations for pay satisfaction under union and nonunion conditions.006) Years experience at institution .003 (.326* (.052) (.A.25*** Constant 1.Ql) and insignificant in the nonunion regression.006) (.167) R^ .223) 294*** ('. Variables Union" Sex „ . but there were no differences in pay satisfaction by sex in the nonunion universities.255* -. Bugental. a finding that is consistent with much of the previous research in this area (Centers &.320*** .18 to . Pay level .209) 039 (. Interactions on pay satisfaction were tested for (1) faculty group. (.188) (.47 -.021* . Neither first nor second order interactions were found to be significant. tenure.. None of the union coefficients reached statistical significance.139) (. 1966. . Age Total Sample (N=263) .139) . Faculty group „ . and years of experience.012) (. Nonunion System (N=136) N. tenure.196 (. pay level was found to be the main determinaht of job satisfaction.028 (. Table 4 shows the regression coefficients and standard errors for the union.21 "Standard errors appear in parentheses. This indicates that women were more satisfied with their pay than males in the union system.A. .013 (.141 . Among the demographic variables.010) 016 ([018) -658** (.262) 20*** 1. and sex and (b) age.254»* Union System (N=127) N. pay level. 1965. -.486** -. The expectation that the discrepancy in pay satisfaction between Business Administration and Liberal Arts would be greater under union conditions did not materialize. Hall. 1975). .21*** . An interesting finding from this analysis is that the sex variable was significant and negative in the union regression (p^.448*** „. In both equations untenured faculty members exhibited a higher level of pay satisfaction than did the tenured faculty.91 2.001) in both regression equations.

16»* 1.07* . Although "high market" faculty groups have been reported to oppose collective bargaining fearing a negotiated leveling of salaries across different units in the university (Bigoness.030 (.246) .091) Pay level .035 (. 1973).132) Resource Adequacy .19 4.098 (.098) -.001 (.058 (.92 Job Context -. (•Standard errors appear in parentheses. Ladd & Lipset.623** (.006 (. No significant differences in pay satisfaction were observed between Liberal Arts and Business Administration faculty in any of the regression equations. 1980) and is likely to affect the quality of recruits (Lawler.036* (.168) -.007) . Also examined was the impact of faculty unionism on various dimensions of job satisfaction.025 (.088 (. 1978.179) .093) . *pS. These findings are important because pay satisfaction is a very strong predictor of turnover (Weiner.008) . the suggestion that in a union system the "high market" group would be less satisfied with their pay than the "low market" group was rejected in this study.016) -.095) Faculty group -. 1971).005 (.005 (.008) Tenure -.039 (.09 "Adding union as the last variable in regression increases R^ by less than .06* 1.128) . .026 (.086 (.02 Constant 3.006 (.004 (.157** (.068) .373*** (.187 (.001 (.054 (.004) .037) .060 (.035) Age .276* (.001 (.227) Job Content -. The results indicate that the presence of a faculty union is positively associated with pay satisfaction. but no differences by sex were observed in the nonunion system.021 (.008) .016) -.247) .080) -.310 (.008) .04 .002 (. after controlling for several correlates of pay satisfaction.O5 ***ps!001 Conclusions and Discussion The current study was undertaken to examine the effect of faculty unions on the pay satisfaction of college professors.070 (.015) -.079* (.016 (.004) Years of experience at institution .069) -. An interesting finding to emerge from this study is that the union moderates the relationship between gender and pay satisfaction for faculty members.182) .21 3.000 for each of the five job dimensions.183) .1984 Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 599 Table 4 Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors for tbe Determinants of Faculty Satisfaction Witb Various Job Dimensions (N=263) Variables Union" Sex Promotion -.60 Supervision .020* (.137) . Women were more satisfied with their pay than males in the union system.077) -.174) .160) .077 (.094 (.149)'' -.148) .063) -.150 (.

This trend has been even more pronounced for business schools . both the direct effect (. however. job context.110) were significant at p <. Lawler & Porter. 1966. both union and nonunion universities must continue to meet these needs if high quality. it should be noted that untenured faculty members were more satisfied with their pay in both union and nonunion conditions. 1976. Given the equalizing effect of the union. 1981). 1973). the Lawler model would predict a positive effect of the union variable on the pay satisfaction of women. they set specific pay criteria for various positions in the organization. Therefore. One of the features of contractually specified union pay systems is that once entry is allowed. and resource adequacy needed to do the job. The findings reported here on the union's effect on faculty pay satisfaction are generally consistent with those found in other employee populations (Hammer. Kochan & Helfman. the union did not have a negative effect on faculty satisfaction with promotion. job content.01 (standard formula. Data in the present study are consistent with this hypothesis because the average male/female earning differential by faculty rank is over twice as high in the Wisconsin system ($150 per month) than in the Minnesota system ($61 per month). no evidence was found in this study to suggest that organized faculty members trade off higher satisfaction with "bread and butter" issues in exchange for lower satisfaction with other job dimensions. scarce faculty are to be attracted and retained. Unlike the findings of Kochan and Helfman (1981) among hourly workers. those obtained by other investigators in widely diverse populations and organizational settings (Dyer & Theriault. Schwab & WaUace. One potential explanation may be the so-called "wage compression" effect whereby the earnings of new faculty members have been rising faster than those of tenured faculty members who are "locked" into the system and in many cases enjoy less mobility than their junior counterparts. Therefore. This suggests that faculty members also react strongly to dollars and cents. 1978. 1981). There is a growing amount of cross-sectional research in industry suggesting that unionized environments tend to reduce pay differentials by sex and that women who work under union conditions receive a wage advantage over women in the nonunion sector (Pfeffer & Ross. . The reasons for these findings are unclear and should be addressed in future research. This is an area that deserves further research in the future. and support. and everyone meeting those criteria tend to receive comparable pay.130) and the indirect effect (-. When the average earning differential by sex was included in this study as an intervening variable between union status and the pay satisfaction scale. Kerlinger & Pedhazar. As a final consideration.600 Academy of Management Journal September A question that arises from the interpretation of the data is the extent to which the faculty union creates higher levels of pay satisfaction for women by reducing pay discrimination in the university system. The very high and positive regression coefficients of pay satisfaction for pay level in both union and nonunion conditions converge with. 1974). indicating that objective pay is at least as important to their pay satisfaction as it is for other groups. supervision.

358-363. Faculty union strike activity: Reasons and measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61. & Bugental. raising their starting salaries by over 30 percent since 1979. R. Cameron. & Suntrup. 1976. Sc Keaveny. Bigoness. 1978. L. For example. at a time when the rate of increase for senior professors has lagged substantially behind (American Association of University Professors. 1981. 1981. That the findings reported here on faculty pay satisfaction under union and nonunion conditions are consistent with those found in other groups tends to strengthen their validity. 1982. Monthly Labor Review. 34. 14. the procedures utilized for selecting the samples and research sites were designed to minimize this possibility. & Theriault. 32-33. 596-604. 17. J. O. Industrial Relations..99(4). The relationship between faculty unionism and organizational effectiveness. References Allen. 63. Columbia University.. subtle differences in administrative procedures at the department level may have an unanticipated effect on pay satisfaction. 244-246. Personnel Psychology. 1966-1979. R. Feuille. R. Industrial Relations. 18. 1975.. Industrial Relations.: Prentice-Hall. Bimbaum. F. Faculty union activity in higher education—1978. N. 233-242. 50. Davey. 25.. Dyer. 1-20.. R. J. Faculty job satisfaction and bargaining sentiments: A case study. 1980. Journal of Applied Psychology.1984 Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 601 that have experienced an explosive demand for new assistant professors. P. Creative academic bargaining. & Estenson. Salary Survey. New York: Teachers College. 1974. J. E. 1980. J. American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 579-589.19. 1978. 1982). & Theriault. Journal of Applied Psychology. F. E. M. Oarbarino. Comparative work value systems. The determinants of pay satisfaction. H.J. Although the danger of spurious relationships with pay satisfaction in this study may be a cause of concern. D. Dreher. . Academy of Management Journal. N. 1965. Bognanno. Bognanno.. R. E. Aussieker. L. One of the limitations of this study is the possibility that other exogenous factors not included in the regression equations may be related to the presence or absence of a union as well as the observed differences in pay satisfaction between the Minnesota and Wisconsin samples.: Prentice-Hall. Hall. Occupational inclusions in faculty bargaining units. P. 228-239. Occupations and the social structure. Schwab. Academy of Management Journal. Faculty unionization: The pre-Yeshiva years. L.. 1982. 6-24.J. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivators among different segments of the working population. F. F. 29. 1982. Centers. Predicting the salary satisfaction of exempt employees. J. Friedlander. 66. Englewood Cliffs. W. H. 18. 678-692. 582-588. Correlations of university faculty interest in unionization: A replication and extension. M. & Lawler. 1976. 1966. Contemporary collective bargaining. Correlates of faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining. Dyer. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Blandin. J. Managerial perceptions regarding salary increase criteria. Oarbarino. K. T.. 1975. W. 1976. D. B. 221-230. Personnel Psychology. Englewood CUffs. R. D.. L. Personnel Psychology.. 193-197.

: Northwestern University. Kochan. 1973.J. TTie management of compensation. Personnel Psychology. Minn. T.: Cameide Commission on Higher Education. England. Rinehart. ^^Tl^ A psychologicat view. A. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Relationship between local union characteristics and worker behavior and attitudes Academy of Management Journal.. David B. Berkeley. Evanston. N.: UnivKsity of Minnesota. V. New York: McOraw- ^ " * '**'""' ^' ^" ^'*<*'<='>^ managers' pay and their satisfaction with their pay. at the University of Florida. 560-578. Stem (Eds. Minneapolis. at Northeastem University. A. Industrial Relations. ' ^. The effects of collective bargaining on economic and behavioral ? f ? ^ " J" *• ° ' ^•*^*"'*'« (E<*)' Re^rch in labor economics.Correlates of employee satisfaction with pay. 1973. 1 9 ^ . Balkin is Assistant Professor. J. College of Business. M. & J. ^^f^ ^ o " «"<• ^^^tale wage and status attainment. Public sector bargaining. Graduate School of Business Administration. """versiiy oi Luis R. and higher education. Manual for Minnesota sati^action guestionnaire. p . 1981. Conn. E. W. MxTmesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. E. & Lipset. New York: Holt. 1978. 1*365> Ladd. J. ' ^' * * <'»ff"ences in job satisfaction: A reexamination.* Pwihazar. 111. N.). ftCarroU. 1976.: Industrial Relations Research Association. D. Work Adjustment Project. O. E. L. Industrial Relations. C . Greenwich. Drtenmnants and behavioral consequences of pay satisfaction: A comparison of two models. . Nash. 21. Monterey. D. 1978. 741-757. S. Person- MitcheU. ^ ^ " "'• ^''y'"*^'"^<'"^f'°'«''effectiveness: Hill. Dawis.. S. B"^'-""! u f n ^ ' .: JAI Press. Wis. Madison. R.. i'OTon/ie/Aj'cAo/oo'. Wdner. MuMpk regression in behavioral research. 1973. Weiss. In B. The impact of coUective bargaining on compensation in the public sector. 118-149. & Winston. H. Gomez-Mejia is Assistant Professor. 33. 1971.. Industrial Relations Center. Orodm. Aaron J. H. unions. '^'["ilff' ^ .. ' °" ^" °«*«'™''»n's of Pay and satisfaction. T. H. & Lofquist.602 Academy of Management Joumai September Hammer. Cal. Cal. 1980. Professors. Personnel Psychology. & Helfman.: Brooks/Cole. 1975.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful