東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The reward preferences of mid-level ...

Jaffee, Deborah Lynne.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals./
作者:	Jaffee, Deborah Lynne.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2015,
面頁冊數:	268 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 77-06, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International77-06A.
標題:	Psychology. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3737725
ISBN:	9781339274843

The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals.
Jaffee, Deborah Lynne.

The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015 - 268 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 77-06, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 2015.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

It is currently unknown and undocumented which rewards mid-level student affairs professionals prefer, why they prefer those rewards, and how mid-level student affairs professionals believe the receipt of preferred rewards would influence job performance. Developing an understanding for preferred rewards is important for retaining professionals who might leave the field as a result of reward dissatisfaction (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999; Lawler, 2006) and to optimize performance (Lawler, 2000; 2006). The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to understand the rewards that mid-level student affairs professionals working at the University of Maryland (UMD) and George Washington University (GWU) prefer and 2) how those professionals believe the receipt of preferred rewards would influence their job performance. The study employed a collective case study design. While individual participants served as the primary cases, knowledge of institutional differences served as a theoretical proposition to examine similarities and differences for themes across cases. Data were collected through survey questionnaires, document analyses, and semi-structured interviews. The survey questionnaire verified participation criteria and informed the development of semi-structured interview questions. In total, over 125 institutional webpages were reviewed in order to understand if disconnects existed between employee perceptions and written policies. In total, 15 professionals completed semi-structured interviews and represented the following areas of specialization: career services, counseling, disabled student services, parent and family affairs, residential life, student conduct, and student engagement. The rewards commonly preferred amongst study participants related to performance management and included: revising the formal performance evaluation process, engaging in developmental conversations and receiving feedback from supervisors, and receiving recognition. Institutional differences influenced participants' preferences for: institutional fit, professional development, salary, and work life balance. Across both sites of study, participants believed their performance would be influenced by the receipt of feedback, engaging in developmental conversations, participating in professional development, receiving work life balance benefits, and working in a positive environment. Salary and benefits were preferred rewards; however, they had no influence on participants' performance. Recommendations for practice are provided for supervisors and higher education human resource professionals. Additionally, recommendations for future research are provided.

ISBN: 9781339274843Subjects--Topical Terms:

519075
Psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Expectancy theory

The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals.
LDR:04081nmm a2200433 4500 001 2397450
005 20240624103723.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2015 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339274843
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3737725
035 $a (MiAaPQ)indiana:13858
035 $a AAI3737725
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Jaffee, Deborah Lynne. $3 3767228
245 1 0 $a The reward preferences of mid-level student affairs professionals and the influence on job performance perceived by these individuals.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2015
300 $a 268 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 77-06, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Nelson Laird, Thomas.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 2015.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a It is currently unknown and undocumented which rewards mid-level student affairs professionals prefer, why they prefer those rewards, and how mid-level student affairs professionals believe the receipt of preferred rewards would influence job performance. Developing an understanding for preferred rewards is important for retaining professionals who might leave the field as a result of reward dissatisfaction (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999; Lawler, 2006) and to optimize performance (Lawler, 2000; 2006). The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to understand the rewards that mid-level student affairs professionals working at the University of Maryland (UMD) and George Washington University (GWU) prefer and 2) how those professionals believe the receipt of preferred rewards would influence their job performance. The study employed a collective case study design. While individual participants served as the primary cases, knowledge of institutional differences served as a theoretical proposition to examine similarities and differences for themes across cases. Data were collected through survey questionnaires, document analyses, and semi-structured interviews. The survey questionnaire verified participation criteria and informed the development of semi-structured interview questions. In total, over 125 institutional webpages were reviewed in order to understand if disconnects existed between employee perceptions and written policies. In total, 15 professionals completed semi-structured interviews and represented the following areas of specialization: career services, counseling, disabled student services, parent and family affairs, residential life, student conduct, and student engagement. The rewards commonly preferred amongst study participants related to performance management and included: revising the formal performance evaluation process, engaging in developmental conversations and receiving feedback from supervisors, and receiving recognition. Institutional differences influenced participants' preferences for: institutional fit, professional development, salary, and work life balance. Across both sites of study, participants believed their performance would be influenced by the receipt of feedback, engaging in developmental conversations, participating in professional development, receiving work life balance benefits, and working in a positive environment. Salary and benefits were preferred rewards; however, they had no influence on participants' performance. Recommendations for practice are provided for supervisors and higher education human resource professionals. Additionally, recommendations for future research are provided.
590 $a School code: 0093.
650 4 $a Psychology. $3 519075
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 641065
650 4 $a Higher education administration. $3 2122863
653 $a Expectancy theory
653 $a Higher education
653 $a Human resources
653 $a Self determination theory
653 $a Student affairs
653 $a Total rewards
690 $a 0446
690 $a 0621
690 $a 0745
710 2 $a Indiana University. $b Education. $3 3170453
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 77-06A.
790 $a 0093
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2015
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3737725