Accounting, Organizations an&Society, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 287-302, 1985. 0361-3682/85 $3.00+.

00
Printed in Great Britain @ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION

AND INTENDED TURNOVER IN THE LARGE CPA FIRM*

MARL4 LOMBARD1 BULLEN

School ofAccountancy, Georgia State University

and

ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ
Graduate School of Management, University of Cal@ornia, Los Angeles

Abstracl

This research reports on the development and test of a model of job satisfaction and intended turnover in
the large CPA firm environment. On an overall basis, the model was generally supported. Satisfaction
showed strong significance in a multiple regression equation predicting the probability of turnover. In addi-
tion, eleven dimensions of job satisfaction developed through factor analysis, as well as a “career prepara-
tion” variable, correlated positively with a measure of overall job satisfaction and negatively with a measure
of the probability of turnover.

This research reports on the theoretical de-
velopment and empirical test of a model of job
satisfaction and intended turnover in the large
CPA firm environment. The empirical test
studies one large metropolitan office of a “Big
Eight” CPA firm in the United States. However,
due to the similarities in large CPA firms, the
study may have implications for other large firms
as well.
A key objective of this research was to
uncover the causes of dissatisfaction in order to
reduce them and, in turn, to control turnover to
the optimal extent. In general, although some
turnover is expected and considered necessary
by large CPA firms, the uncontrolled high rate of
turnover which these firms experience appears
to be dysfunctional.
It is generally accepted in the industrial psy-
chology literature that satisfaction is inversely
related to turnover (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955;
Herzberg et al., 1957; March & Simon, 1958;
Vroom, 1964; Porter & Steers, 1973; Lawler,
1973). In the accounting area, several resear-
chers, including the authors of this paper, have
shown that aspects of satisfaction are related to
turnover (Sorensen, 1967; Capin, 1969; Fetyko,
1972; Loeb & Gannon, 1972; White & Hellriegel,
1973; Lammers, 1975; lstvan & Wollman, 1976;
Rhode et al., 1976, 1977; Faircloth & Carrell,
1978; Dillard & Ferris, 1979; Tyra, 1980; Bullen,
1982). Other studies which have considered
aspects of job satisfaction in the CPA firm envi-
ronment have included Strawser et al., 1969;
Ferris, 1977; Amernic et al., 1979; Benke &
Rhode, 1980; Albrecht et al., 198 1; and Gaertner
& Ruhe, 1981.

l The authors wish to acknowledge Professor Roger H. Hermanson of Georgia State University, Professors David M. Boje.
James E. Bruno. Louis E. Davis. and Paul I. Rosenthal. all of the Universiry of California, Los Angeles, and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

287
288 MARIA LOMBARD1 BULLBN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ
Within the accounting area, but not specifi-
cially the large CPA firm environment, a recent
study of accountants (Aranya et al., 1982) from
a variety of firm settings did not find an associa-
tion between job satisfaction and turnover.
These results, which apparently conflict with
prior findings, emphasize the need for research
concentrating on the specific large firm environ-
ment.
Within the accounting literature, high rates of
turnover are commonplace, with most accoun-
tants leaving in the first few years. For example,
Grossman (1967) as reviewed in Leathers
( 1971) reported that 15% of new hires left after
one year, 45% after three years, 62% after five
years and 84% after ten years. In studying 7500
employees in a 2 1 year period in one large firm,
Capin ( 1969) found that 15% of starting
employees had left after one year, 62% after
three years, and 82% after ten years. A partner in
charge of a major office of a Big Eight firm
(Steele, 1976) provided statistics for his firm for
the past ten years. These showed that 19% of
newly hired accountants had left after one year,
50% after three years, and 80% after five years.
Relatively few leave after the fifth year. Tyra
( 1980) reported that 32% of the professional
stalYfrom one Big Eight firm left by the end of the
second year, 66% by the end of the fourth year
and 78% by the end of the sixth year.
The particular CPA firm investigated in this
study had experienced employee shortages at
the semi-senior, senior and supervisor levels.
Whereas the office experienced an overall tur-
nover rate in their professional stti of approxi-
mately 34% in the year prior to this study, the
partners desired to reduce turnover to the low
20% range.
High turnover rates result in certain costs to
the CPA firm. Fetyko ( 1972) estimates an expen-
diture of $15,000 per newly recruited accoun-
tant for the first year for selecting, recruiting,
training and salary. Other authors (Sorensen et
al., 1973) report that the replacement cost of an
entry-level staff accountant has been estimated
to exceed 510,000. The costs associated with
turnover include the specific, direct costs of
selection and training, as well as the more gen-
era1 investments involving lower productivity
and greater supervision required during training
periods. Whereas some of these costs may be
absorbed by clients, it is doubtful that this would
be true for all of the costs, especially considering
the increased competition for clients in the CPA
profession. In addition, there are possible costs
resulting from negative goodwill of dissatisfied
migrating employees who may move to client or
prospective client positions.
Intended turnover is likely to lead to turnover
which in turn leads to the above described costs
to either the CPA firms themselves or to their
clients. Thus, research which attempts to find
ways to decrease turnover and intended tur-
nover is of economic significance to CPA firms
and to their clients. Since owner-partners have
invested and are planning future investments in
human resources with the expectation of realiz-
ing a good return, it seems reasonable that own-
ers would seek ways to protect their human cap-
ital investments.
THE MODEL
The model providing the basic framework for
study in this research is presented in Fig. 1.
According to this model, three major areas
impact on the individual firm member’s assess-
ment of his or her job satisfaction: ( 1) satisfac-
tion with various “dimensions” of the work envi-
ronment, (2) perception of the job’s success in
preparing the individual for his or her career
goals, and (3) perception of the availability to
the individual of extraorganizational job
options.
The satisfaction “dimensions” shown in the
model were developed from the broad
categories of (a) work itself, (b) working condi-
tions, (c) organizational environment, (d) finan-
cial rewards, and (e) promotion opportunity.
This preliminary classification was formulated as
a result of a literature review and prior personal
CPA experience. Next, from preliminary inter-
views at the research site, these broad categories
were broken down into a larger set of 30 prelimi-
nary satisfaction dimension variables (Table 1).
 A THEOFtETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 289

Perceptron of Perceptjon af
job’5 success avarlabilky of
Communlcbtron in preparmg extraorgonrzat~onal
Appreciation/porticipotion for cower Options
Supervision/evaluation gwts
Staffmg
Counseltng/lroswg
Financial
Promotion
I
* :
1 ,Amq! 1
Overah assessment _ LevelT L,
of
c---- ---I * ) Probabjlity of turnover
zz,z?:;, I.,\
DL.,.“, (Intent to leave)
job sahsfactjon Other factors J§ L

* Tested by Hypotheses I-3

t Tested by Hypotheses 4 -7

) Although beyond the scope of thus paper, differences by these vanobkes In the other model vorlabtes
have teen tested, and a number of drfferences found. See Butlen (1982).

5 Other factors which may affect job sotjsfactron and turnover that have not been tested by the
researchers Include performance, ability, personality, ond certorn other personal charactenstlcs,
geogrophicat locatron and general economic condttjons.

Fig. 1. Model of the components of job satishction and the probability of turnover.

These were used as a guide in constructing a
questionnaire “tailor-made” for the large CPA
firm environment. Subsequently, factor analysis
was used to reduce the 70 satisfaction dimen-
sions questionnaire items based on the 30 pre-
liminary variables to 11 “factors” or scales.
These became the actual variables used in the
analysis: ( 1) higher needs/work itself, (2) client
range/assignments, ( 3) pressures, (4) office sup-
port, (5) communication, (6) appreciatiompar-
ticipation, (7) supervision/evaluation, (8) staf-
fing, (9) counselingtraining,,( 10) financial, and
( 11) promotion.
The model also postulates that the individual
CPA firm member’s probability of turnover (i.e.,
intent to leave) is affected by four factors: ( 1)
overall assessment of satisfaction, (2) satisfac-
tion with the dimensions of the working envi-
ronment, (3) perception of the job’s success in
preparing for career goals, and (4) perception of
the availability of extraorganizational options.
Thus, the model maintains that the latter three
items affect the probability of turnover both
directly and through their indirect effect on
overall satisfaction.
The model specifies that its five major compo-
nents (satisfaction dimensions, perception of
the job’s success in preparing for career goals,
perception of availability of extraorganizational
options, overall assessment of satisfaction, and
probability of turnover) are likely to exhibit dif-
ferences due to the individual’s ( 1) area special-
ity or department in the firm, (2) level in the
firm, (3) career goal preferences, and (4)
demographic characteristrcs (i.e., length with
firm, education and sex). “Other” factors
include performance record, ability for public
accounting work, personality and certain other
personal characteristics, geographical location,
and general economic conditions. Although
reporting on these differences is beyond the
scope of this study, items ( 1) through (4) above
have been tested in Bullen ( 1982 ).
A listing of variables tested in this study
appears in Table 2.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects were from one large metropoli-
tan office of a U.S. “Big Eight” firm. However, due
to the similarities in large CPA firms, this study
may also have implications for other large firms.
290 MARL4 LOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ

.
TABLE 1. Listing of preliminary satisfaction dimension such as identifying and acting upon potentially
variables controllable sources of job satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction.
a Work itserf
1. Skill variety
Data for the study were obtained through a
2. Autonomy questionnaire distributed to nonpartner firm
3. Authority members. The number of responses was 125,
4. Self-esteem ’ representing a response rate of 76%.
5. Growth opportunity
6. Interaction with high level clients
7. Work identity
Questionnaire
8. Worksignificance The questionnaire was developed specifically
9. Client range for measuring the variables under study in the
large CPA firm environment. An important part
b Working conditions
of the study involved the participation of 17 firm
10. SecretariaUadministrative support
I 1. Office physical environment
members in a preliminary interview process for
12. Multiple Assignments the purpose of identifying relevant items for
13. Time factors inclusion in the questionnaire, reviewing the
14. Travel requirements completed instrument for reasonableness, and
making predictions regarding the hypotheses.
C Organizationaienvironment
IS. Communication
A literature review was also undertaken to
16. Recognition identify possible sources of satisfaction or dis-
17. Appreciation satisfaction to be included in the measuring
18. Participation instrument, as was prior personal experience in
19. Bureaucracy
the Big Eight CPA environment.
20. Relationship with co-workers
The format of the questionnaire was a five
2 1. Supervision
22. Evaluation point Likert-type scale. Seventy questionnaire
23. Training items were constructed to measure the satisfac-
24. Counseling tion dimensions. Overall satisfaction and proba-
25. StatBng
bility of turnover were each measured by two
d Financial rewards TABLE 2. Listing of variables
26. Salary
27. Fringe benefits Satisfaction dimensions variables (from factor analysis)
28 Salary equity 1. Higher needs/work itself
2. Pressures
e mmotion opportunityljo6 security
3. Communication
29. Promotion opportunity 4. Promotion
30. Job security 5. Supervision/evaluation
6. Office support
7. Staffing
8. Appreciation/participation
The CPA firm under study estimated that an 9. Client range/assignments
10. Financial
average of $5,000 per recruit was expended for
I I. Counseling/training
the more identifiable costs of recruiters’ salaries
and travel, staff time spent recruiting and formal Other variables in model
training. The firm indicated that certain factors 12. Overall satisfaction: overall assessment of satisfaction
significantly affecting turnover were beyond 13. Probability of turnover: intent to migrate
14. Career preparation: perception of job’s success in pre-
their control (i.e., the economy’s influence on
paring for future career goals
the availability of outside options). However, 15. Availability of options: perception of availability of
they realized the possibility of, and expressed extraorganizational job opportunities
interest in reducing turnover through means
 A THEOBETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 291

questions; career preparation and availability of
options by one questionnaire item each. The
complete instrument can be found in Bullen
(1982).
Statement of hypotheses
The hypotheses investigated were:
1. Prediction of overall satisfaction
Hl: The satisfaction dimensions cannot be used to pre-
dict overall satisfaction.
H2: Career preparation cannot be used to predict overall
satisfaction.
H3: Availability of options cannot be used to predict
overaIl satisfaction.
2. Prediction of probability of turnover
H4: The satisfaction dimensions cannot be used to pre-
dict probability of turnover.
H5: Overall satisfaction cannot be used to predict proba-
bility of turnover.
H6: Career preparation cannot be used to predict proba-
bility of turnover.
H?: Availability of options cannot be used to predict
probability of turnover.
Analysis of data
Table 3 shows the specific statistical
methodology used in testing the hypotheses.
Hypotheses 1 through 7 were tested using muhi-
ple regression analysis (using SPSS), while Pear-
son Product Moment correlations provided
information on the degree to which the applica-
ble variables were interrelated.
RESULTS
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, fre-
quencies and reliabilities of the satisfaction
dimensions and other variables. The lowest
mean (“ 1 = Very dissatisfied”; “5 = Very satis-
fied”) for the satisfaction dimensions was office
support (2.72); while the highest was higher
needs/work itself (3.77). Satisfaction dimen-
sions are discussed further in connection with
the results of the hypothesis testing.
The mean for the overall satisfaction scale
revealed that most people scored in the middle
or on the positive side. The implication is that a
major immediate overhaul of the entire working
environment is not needed. Rather, particularly
for those members giving responses in the mid-
dle ranges, satisfaction is likely to increase with
changes in those dimensions of the working
environment which are identified as sources of
dissatisfaction.
For probability of turnover, the mean indi-
cated that, on an overall basis, respondents per-
ceived slightly more of an intention to stay with
than to leave the firm, at least in the relatively
short run. However, further examination of the

TABLE 3. Statistical analysis used to test hypotheses

Hypothesis Independent
tested variable Dependent variable Type of analysis

a. Related to researchquestion I: prediction of and relationship to overall satisfaction

Hl Satisfaction Overall satisfaction 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
dimensions
H2 Career preparation Overall satisfaction 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
H3 Availability of Overall satisfaction 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
options

b. Related to researchquestion 2:prediction of and relationship toprobability of turnover

H4 Satisfaction Probability of turnover 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
dimensions
H5 Overall satisfaction Probability of turnover 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
Hb Career preparation Probability of turnover 1. Multiple regression 2. Correlation analysis
H7 Availability of
options
292 MARIA LOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FL4MHOLTZ

TABLE 4. Descriptive statistics, frequencies and reliabilities of constructed satisfaction scales and other variables

Average scale
Number item
of items score
in Relia- Range (Mean f
Variable scale bility* Meant S.D. Low High no. items)

Satisfactionscalesi
1. Higher needs/ 12 0.91 45.26 7.96 20 60 3.77
work itself
2. Pressures 0.84 25.65 5.18 10 39 3.21
3. Communication 0.88 29.76 6.83 10 44 3.31
4. Promotion 0.83 21.70 4.88 8 32 3.10
5. Supervision/ 0.84 23.16 4.66 9 32 3.31
evaluation
6. Office support 5 0.80 13.59 3.75 5 23 2.72
7. StatTing 6 0.85 17.38 4.70 6 27 2.90
8. Appreciation/ 6 0.87 18.86 4.96 7 28 3.14
participation
9. Client range/ 5 0.74 18.30 3.11 8 24 3.66
assignments
10. Financial 4 0.71 11.80 2.86 4 19 2.95
11. Counselin@aining 4 0.74 12.39 3.20 5 20 3.10

Other variables
Overall satisfaction5 2 0.81” 4.79 1.79 2 10 2.40$
Probability of tumover(/ 2 0.71tt 5.56 2.71 2 10 2.78
Career preparation7 1 - 3.8 1 0.96 1 5 3.81
Availability of options7 1 - 4.26 0.78 2 5 4.26

l Cronbach’s “coefficient alpha”.

t The means should not be compared down the column as the scales are comprised of different numbers of items.
$ The scale range is “1” = very dissatisfied; “5” = very satisfied.
5 For the overall satisfaction scale, unlike the other scales, a “1” represents the most satisfied/positive response and a “5”
the most dissatisfied/negative response. Thus a “2.4” average on the overall satisfaction scale would be a “3.6” if the
scaling had been similar to the other scales.
/IA “1” = highest probability of turnover, “5” = lowest.
fl The scale range is “ 1” = not at all; “5” = to a very great extent.
** Pearson Correlation of two questionnaire items in scale.
tt Pearson Correlation of two questionnaire items in scale.

frequencies to the questionnaire responses
revealed that about 80% did intend to leave
within five years. Since turnover is a problem
particularly within the semi-senior through
beginning supervisor levels (two to five year
ranges), improvements made to control the
level of turnover by identifying potentially con-
trollable sources of job satisfaction and dissatis-
faction are of potential benefit.
The mean for career preparation suggests that
many people perceived that their job was still
preparing them for their future career goals.
Firm members showed that they valued their
public accounting experience and considered it
a stepping stone to their future careers, within or
outside the firm.
As was expected, for availability of options,
most of the respondents answered on the posi-
tive side, indicating that they perceived a high
availability of extraorganizational job oppor-
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 293

tunities in the particular large city in which the TABLE 5. Prediction of overall satisfaction from facet
research firm is located. The implication is that satisfaction scales, career preparation and availability
of options
the probability of turnover is likely to be higher
and overall satisfaction possibly lower than if Unstand- Stand-
there had been a low availability perceived. Variable ardized ardized F

Prediction of overall satisfaction: hypotheses Satisfaction scales

1. Higher needs/work itself -0.09 -0.38 11.96t
1-3 -0.17 4.15’
2. Pressures -0.59
In the multiple regression analysis, overall 0.13 0.05 0.15NS
3. Communication
satisfaction was the “dependent” variable pre- 4. Promotion -0.43 -0.12 1.58NS
dicted by the 11 satisfaction dimensions vari- 5. Supervision/evaluation 0.26 0.07 0.53NS
ables, career preparation and availability of 6. Office support -0.39 -0.01 O.OINS
7. Staffing -0.38 -0.10 1.46NS
options.
8. Appreciation/participation -0.16 -0.04 0.15NS
As the results in Table 5 indicate, the F-ratio is -0.20 -0.03 0.15NS
9. Client Range/assignments
significant at p < 0.001. The R’, which is the 10. Financial 0.28 0.05 0.32NS
proportion of variation explained by the vari- 11. Counseling/training -0.25 -0.04 0.30NS
ables included in the regression equation, was
Other variables
0.64. The other measure of the accuracy of use-
Career preparation -0.63 -0.34 24.55t
fulness of the prediction equation, the standard Availability of options 0.85 0.04 0.38NS
errors of the estimate, is 1.40. These measures
indicate a reasonable level of accuracy. l Significant atpC0.05.
The results show that only two of the satisfac- t Sign&cant at p<O.OOl.
tion dimensions - i.e., higher needs/work itself NS = Not significant atpc0.05.
and pressures - and the career preparation var- R2 = 0.64.
iable, are statistically sign&ant (at the 0.05 Standard error = 1.40.
level) in predicting overall satisfaction. How- F( 13,110) = 15.04t.
ever, according to the basic model of this study, N = 124.
it was expected that all the satisfaction dimen-
sions would have an impact on overall satisfac- shown in Table 6. (Since the scales for the satis-
tion. It should be noted that the reason why faction dimensions and overall satisfaction run
some of the other satisfaction dimensions were in opposite directions, the correlations show
not signticant may be explained by their corre- negative signs on Table 6 even though the sub-
lation with the dimensions that were significant. stantive meaning is a positive relationship.) As
As explained below, these correlations indicate indicated in Table 6, the correlations of higher
that there does appear to be some multicol- needs/work itself with a number of the other
linearity, which may have some effect on the dimensions are high - particularly with com-
multiple regression equation. However, this is munication (0.75), client range/assignments
not considered a serious problem in the theoret- (0.68), appreciation/participation (0.66), staf-
ical development of the satisfaction model in fing (0.60), and supervision/evaluation (0.57).
this study. For example, proving a strict direc- Table 6 shows that pressures was correlated
tional relationship is not the only approach in fairly highly (0.62) with supervision/evaluation.
providing information regarding the relation- The point to be made is that most of the variabil-
ship of the satisfaction dimensions and other var- ity in overall satisfaction was “explained” by the
iables with overall satisfaction. Correlation higher needs/work itself and pressures dimen-
analysis can also suggest which variables are sions. Since these two were related to the other
likely to have most impact on overall satisfac- dimensions, there was not much variability left
tion. The intercorrelations between the satisfac- to be explained by them. In other words, if
tion dimensions and the other variables are higher needs/work itself and pressures had been
 TABLE 6. Intercorrelations among facet satisfaction scales and other variables

Variable
satisfactiondimensions$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OS. P.T. C.P. A

1. Higher needs/work itself 1.00

2. Pressures 0.45 1.00
3. Communication 0.75 0.55 1.00
4. Promotion 0.43 0.46 0.60 1.oo
5. Supervision/evaluation 0.57 0.62 0.60 0.53 1.oo
6. Office support 0.17t 0.26 0.28 0.37 0.35 1.00
7. StafBng 0.60 0.51 0.59 0.45 0.6 1 0.34 1.00
8. Appreciation$articipation 0.66 0.52 0.83 0.68 0.55 0.24 0.53 1.00
9. Client range/assignments 0.68 0.52 0.52 0.4 1 0.57 0.30 0.57 0.44 1.00
10. Financial 0.30 0.49 0.50 0.62 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.49 0.34 1.00
11. Counselling/training 0.43 0.25 0.58 0.36 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.48 0.35 0.32 1.oo

Other variables:
Overall satisfaction11 -0.70 -0.49 -0.58 -0.45 -0.52 -0.24 -0.54 -0.55 -0.60 -0.32 -0.37 1.00
Probability of turnover)) 0.51 0.35 0.46 0.28 0.39 0.17t 0.31 0.48 0.38 0.23 0.25 -0.61 1.00 n
0.15’ 0.24 -0.60 0.47 1.00 w
Careerpreparation” 0.47 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.38 0.15t 0.29 0.31 0.48
Availabilityofoptions” 0.12’ O.lO$ 0.09$ -0.08$ O.lO$ -0.03$ 0.11s 0.11s 0.07$ O.Ol# -0.01* -0.07$ 0.02$ 0.14$ 1.00 E
m
- 3
NOTE: With the exception of the following items, all of the above correlations are significant atjKO.01. 2
l Significant atp<O.lO. # The scale range is “ 1” -very dissatisfied; “5” -very satisfied
7 Significant atpC0.05. ((The scale range is ” 1” -most satisfied, positive response; “5” -most dissatisfied, negative response. Note that this is
the opposite of the direction of the satisfaction dimensions scales; thus the correlations of the satisfaction
$ Not significant atpt0.10. dimensions with overall satisfaction show negative signs even though they are positively correlated.
1 In the scale range a “ 1” represents the highest probability of turnover; and a “5” the lowest
l* Thescale range is”1”-not at all; “5”-toaverygreat extent-i.e., these “run thesameway”as the
satisfaction dimensions scales.
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
left out of the regression equation, it is conceiva-
ble that these other dimensions would have
shown significance.
In addition to multiple regression analysis,
examination of the correlations of the individual
satisfaction dimensions with overall satisfaction
provided useful information. As shown in Table
6, the satisfaction dimensions having the highest
correlation with overall satisfaction were higher
needs/work itself (0.70) client range/assign-
ments (0.60) communication (0.58) apprecia-
tion/participation (0.55), staffing (0.54) super-
vision/evaluation (0.52) pressures (0.49) and
promotion (0.45). Thus, these variables are
likely to be most related to overall satisfaction.
On the other hand, the dimensions with the
lowest correlations were office support (0.24)
financial (0.32) and counseling/training (0.37).
Upon first review, it seems somewhat surprising
that office support and financial were the least
correlated with overall satisfaction. Office sup-
port, with an average item scale mean of 2.72
(“1” = very dissatisfied; “5” = very satisfied)
showed the lowest mean of the 11 satisfaction
dimensions and financial (2.95) was the third
lowest. Additionally, complaints regarding them
were made in comments both in the preliminary
interviews and in an open-ended section of the
questionnaire.
The explanation appears to be that, while
some people may be annoyed with these items,
they are not as important in determining their
overall satisfaction as are the other more highly
correlated dimensions, and career preparation.
Overall, people were on the positive side of the
satisfaction scale; thus the dimensions on the
positive side are likely to show higher correla-
tion with overall satisfaction. For example, the
highest correlation with overall satisfaction is
higher needs/work itself As Table 4 indicates,
this scale was rated the highest in satisfacion.
As expected, in determining their “overall
satisfaction,” the CPA firm members are factor-
ing in both negative and positive factors, but
somewhat emphasizing the positive. Apparently,
factors related to their organizational environ-
ment, the satisfaction of their higher needs, the
work they are doing, and the clients and experi-
OF JOB SATISFACTION 295
ence they are getting, are all important in deter-
mining these individuals’ overall job satisfaction.
In fact, the above items appear to be even more
important than, for example, monetary compen-
sation in the sense that they are more highly cor-
related with overall satisfaction.
The correlation analysis shows that career
preparation is one of the most positively corre-
lated variables (0.60) with overall satisfaction.
The results of the multiple regression indicate
that, as predicted, career preparation signifi-
cantly predicts overall satisfaction (at the 0.00 1
level). Thus, the firm members’ perceptions of
the job’s success in preparing them for their
future career goals can be considered an impor-
tant factor in determining how satisfied they are
with their positions on an overall basis.
Availability of options was not significant.
Most people, including the more satisfied and
less satisfied members, seemed to feel that there
was a good availability of employment oppor-
tunities outside the firm. Thus, there was not
much variability in this variable in the subjects
(from one large city) in this study. However, it is
still possible that, in other situations, availability
of options would show more of a relationship to
overall satisfaction.
Prediction of probability of turnover: bypotb-
eses 4-7
This last set of hypotheses tests the major
relationships in the model forming the theoreti-
cal basis of this study - i.e., that the probability
of turnover is predicted by the satisfaction
dimensions (H4), overall satisfaction (H5),
career preparation (HG), and availability of
options (H7).
Table 7 shows the results of the multiple
regression analysis using probability of turnover
as the dependent variable. Again, the F-ratio is
significant at the 0.001 level. However the R2
(0.45) is lower, and the standard error (2.13)
higher than for the equation predicting overall
satisfaction. Thus, this multiple regression equa-
tion is somewhat weaker, although it is consi-
dered adequate for the purpose of testing the
hypotheses and drawing some conclusions.
Examination of the significance levels of the
296 ,MABIALOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ

TABLE 7. Prediction of probability of turnover from facet coefficients did not show significance. Examina-
satisfaction scales, overall satisfaction, career preparation tion of the intercorrelations in Table 6 reveals
and availability of options
that overall satisfaction showed the highest
Unstand- Stand-
negative correlation (0.61) with probability of
Variable ardized ardized F turnover. The second highest negative correla-
tion (0.5 1) is with higher needs/work itself.
Satisfaction scales However, as indicated in the previous discussion
1. Higher needs/work itself 0.29 0.09 0.36NS of the hypotheses predicting overall satisfaction,
2. Pressures 0.84 0.02 0.02NS higher needs/work itself was also most signihc-
3. Communication 0.16 0.04 0.06NS
4. Promotion
ant in predicting overall satisfaction @ < 0.00 1)
-0.11 -0.20 3.07.
5. Supervision/evaluation 0.63 0.11 0.89NS and most correlated to it (0.70). So it is quite
6. Office support 0.58 0.08 0.85NS possible that, had overall satisfaction been left
7. StafBng -0.70 -0.12 1.35NS out of the regression equation, higher needs/
8. Appreciation/participation 0.17 0.30 4.04t work itself would have been significant in pre-
9. Client range/assignments -0.64 -0.07 0.42NS
10. Financial
dicting the probability of turnover. The same
0.33 0.04 0.13NS
11. Counseling/training -0.90 -0.10 1.13NS situation appears also applicable to some of the
other satisfaction dimensions which showed the
Other variables higher positive correlations with overall satisfac-
Overall satisfaction -0.62 -0.41 11.95$ tion and the higher negative correlations with
Career preparation 0.47 0.17 3.16’
probability of turnover. For example, for higher
Availability of options -0.31 -0.09 1.46N.S
needs/work itself the two sets of correlations for
overall satisfaction (positive) and probability of
l Significant atp40.10. turnover (negative) were 0.70 and 0.5 1 respec-
t Significant at p<O.OS. tively; for pressures 0.49 and 0.35; for communi-
$ Significant at pCO.00 1. cation 0.58 and 0.46; for staffing 0.54 and 0.31;
NS = Not significant at p<O. 10. and for client range/assignments 0.60 and 0.38.
R’ = 0.45. Thus, it is likely that all of these dimensions, in
Standard error = 2.13. addition to promotion and appreciation/partici-
F( 14,109) = 6.44$ pation, may be useful in predicting probability of
N= 124. turnover.
Again, the dimensions which correlated least
regression equation coefficients for the satisfac- with overall satisfaction also correlated least
tion dimensions reveals that appreciatiotipar- with probability of turnover. These were offtce
ticipation is significant at the 0.05 level. HOW- support (0.24 and 0.17) financial (0.32 and
ever the coefficient showing the highest signift- 0.23) and counseling/training (0.37 and 0.25).
cance (0.001) was overall satisfaction. It was From this data it appears that these three dimen-
predicted that overall satisfaction would sions are not as influential in the decision to mig
strongly impact on the probability of turnover. It rate as are some of the other variables.
was also expected that the individual satisfaction At first, it seems somewhat surprising that the
dimensions would have an effect. However, financial dimension was not correlated more
most of them did not show significant coeffi- highly with probability of turnover. In the pre-
cients. The explanation may be similar to that liminary interviews financial factors were cited a
provided in the last section on overall satisfac- number of times as reasons for people leaving.
tion. In this case, it is likely that, because so However, the idea was also expressed that
much of the variation in probability of turnover people value the experience they receive in the
was accounted for by overall satisfaction, and firm and are willing to forgo dollars for it.
since the satisfaction dimensions are correlated Nevertheless, after a certain period with the
with overall satisfaction, their partial regression firm, they may feel that continuation in public
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 297

accounting is no longer in their best interests
when a position comes along offering “more
money for less work.” The number of years that
a higher value is placed on the experience factor,
rather than on working conditions and compen-
sation, varies with the individual. The point is
that many people consider their public account-
ing experience a training period, and as such an
opportunity to build their own human capital.
They are willing to postpone leaving for higher
salary until the right time, even if they are dis-
satisfied with their compensation. The basic
model in this study proposes what was
suggested by these comments - i.e., that per-
ception of the job’s success in preparing for
career goals influences the probability of tur-
the two satisfaction dimensions, higher needs/
work itselfand pressures, were significant in pre-
dicting overall satisfaction. Overall satisfaction
and the satisfaction dimension, appreciation/
participation, were significant in predicting
probability of turnover. However, availability of
options was not significant in the multiple
regression. Concerning the satisfaction dimen-
sions, all were positively correlated with overall
satisfaction and negatively correlated with prob-
ability of turnover (Table 6). However, most of
the regression coefficients in the multiple
regression equation were not significant.
TABLE 8. Summary of results of hypothesis testing

nover. From the interviews, and the study’s

Null Sign.
results, it appears that this variable is more hypothesis level’
important in influencing probability of turnover
than are some of the individual satisfaction 1. Prediction of owall satisfaction
dimensions. H 1 Overall satisfaction cannot be
predicted by the satisfaction
However, in the multiple regression equation,
dimensions. Rejected Variousi
career preparation was not signscant at the 0.05 H2 Overall satisfaction cannot be
level in predicting the probability of turnover. predicted by career
Nevertheless its correlation (0.47) with the preparation. Rejected O.OOl$
probability of turnover is one of the higher cor- H3 Overall satisfaction cannot be
predicted by availability of
relations, as is indicated in Table 6. Only overall
options. Retained 0.25
satisfaction (0.6 1), higher needs/work itself
(0.5 1 ), and appreciation/participation (0.48) 2. Prediction ofprobability of turnover
are higher. Thus we can conclude that, as pre- H4 Probability of turnover cannot
dicted, career preparation is one of the major be predicted by the satisfaction
dimensions. Rejected Various5
factors entering into the turnover decision.
H5 Probability of turnover cannot
Again, availability of options was not signifi- be predicted by overall
cant, most probably for the type of reasons dis- satisfaction. Rejected 0.001
cussed in the last section on overall satisfaction. H6 Probability of turnover cannot
be predicted by career Between
preparation. Retained 0.05 & 0.10
H7 Probability of turnover cannot
be predicted by availability Between
Summay of results of hypothesis testing ofoptions. Retained 0.108~0.25
Table 8 shows the significance levels of the
statistical analyses used in the hypothesis test- l A signlticance level of 0.05 was necessary to reject the nuIl
hypothesis.
ing; and whether the hypothesis was considered
“retained” or “rejected.” In order to reject the t Further explanation is provided in Table 5 and the text of
this paper.
null hypothesis and accept the alternative as
$ The SPSScomputer program for regression does not print
being true, a 0.05 level of significance was consi-
the actual sign&axe levels; thus the F table approximation
dered necessary. shown is considered appropriate.
On an overall basis, the model was generally 5 Further explanation is provided in Table 7 and the text of
supported. For example, career preparation, and tis paper.
298 MARL4 LOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ
IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Of particular signitlcance for theory develop-
ment in large CPA lirm job satisfaction and tur-
nover is the models inclusion of both the career
preparation and career goal choice variables. To
review, the model proposes that a CPA firm
member’s perception of the job’s success in pre-
paring for career goals impacts on the indi-
viduals overall job satisfaction, as well as on his
or her decision to leave or to stay with the firm.
The results of the hypothesis testing showed that
these propositions of the model were generally
supported. Additionally, the model suggests that
there will be differences in the individuals job
satisfaction and turnover decision as a result of
differences in the individuals future career
goals. This proposition has also been supported.
Thus, forming an integral part of the indi-
vidual’s overall assessment of satisfaction and
probability of turnover are the individual’s
career goals and perceptions of how these goals
are being met in his or her CPA firm position. It
is suggested that aspects of career be included in
the framework guiding future research studies of
job satisfaction and turnover in the large CPA
firm environment. The results obtained in the
hypotheses testing of this study can be used as a
basis in making predictions in future such
hypotheses.
It is also felt that the identification of the satis-
faction dimensions provides implications for
theory and research by specifying variables
which might be included in future studies of job
satisfaction and turnover. These factors should
be considered because they are likely to be
sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. As
shown in the study’s hypothesis testing, satisfac-
tion on each of the 11 satisfaction dimensions
was shown to be positively related to overall
satisfaction and inversely related to probability
of turnover.
The highest correlations (positive) with over-
all satisfaction were higher needs/work itself,
client range/assignments, communication, app-
reciation/participation, staffing, supervision/
evaluation, pressures and promotion. The satis-
faction dimensions with the highest (negative)
correlation with probability of turnover were
higher needs/work itself, appreciationparticipa-
tion, communication, supervision/evaluation,
client range/assignments, pressures and staffing.
From the above it appears as if these factors
are particularly important to firm members’
overall feeling of job satisfaction and their deci-
sions to migrate or stay with the firm. Addition-
ally, it is felt that more work is needed to ascer-
tain the relationship of these variables to job
satisfaction and turnover; and thus that future
research should incorporate study of them.
Availability of options was not significant in
testing the model; although, as suggested earlier,
the reason may be that most people perceived a
high availability of outside job opportunities in
the large city in which the particular firm
studied was located. It is expected that this vari-
able would show more of an impact on overall
satisfaction and probability of turnover in
research utilizing a wider range of subjects from
varying geographical areas and different time
periods. Future research of a longitudinal nature
is needed to fully study the impact of this vari-
able.
In conclusion, there is a need for future work
in the general area of personnel aspects of the
public accounting profession and the specihc
areas of job satisfaction, turnover, and careers in
the large CPA firm environment. This is espe-
cially so as prior work in the area has not been
extensive.
Especially of interest to this research is the
replication of the current study using a represen-
tative sample from all of the large firms. This
future work is necessary in order to support the
generalizeability of the results to this larger envi-
ronment. Such a study would contribute further
by taking a longitudinal approach in examining
actual turnover data at later points in time after
collection of the original data. In this way the
models ability to predict both intended and
actual turnover could be tested. The findings of
such future studies are likely to be of value to
CPA firm owner-partners, employees, prospec-
tive employees and university educators.
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 299

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, W. S., Brown, S. W. & Field, D. R., Toward Increased Job Satisfaction of Practicing CPAs, Journal
ofAccountancy (August 1981) pp. 61-66.
Amemic, J, H., Aranya, N. & PolJock, J,, Is there a Generally Accepted Accountant? CA Magazine (October
1979) pp. 34-42.
Aranya, N., La&man, R. & Amernic, J., Accountants’Job Satisfaction: A Path Analysis, Accounting. Organ-
izations and Society ( 1982) pp. 20 l-2 11.
Bet&e, R. L. & Rhode, J. G., The Job Satisfaction of Higher Level Employees in Large Certified Public
Accounting Firms, Accounting Organizations andsociety ( 1980) pp. 187-201.
Brayfield, A. H. & Crockett, W. H., Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance, PsychologicalBulletin
( 1955) pp. 39-24.
Bullen, M. L., An Empirical Study ofSources ofJob Satisfaction in the Big Eight CPA Firm (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1982).
Capin, R. S.. How to Cope With the StaRMan Shortage. TbePructicul Accountant ( 1969).
DiJJard, J. F. & Ferris, K R., Sources of Professional Staff Turnover in Public Accounting Firms: Some Further
Evidence,Accounting OrganirationsandSociety (1979)~~. 179-186.
Faircloth, A. & Carrell, M., Evaluating Personnel Procedures in CPA Fhms -A Study, Journal ofAccount-
ancy (October 1978).
Ferris, K R., Perceived Uncertainty and Job Satisfaction in the Accounting Environment, Accounting,
Organizations and Society ( 1977) pp. 2328.
Fetyko, D. F., Retention of Staff Personnel in Michigan CPA Firms, The Michigan CPA (May-June 1972)
pp. 21-25.
Gaertner, J. F. & Ruhe, K R., Job-Related Stress in Public Accounting, Journal ofAccountancy (June 198 1)
pp. 68-74.
Herzberg. F., Mausner, B., Peterson. R. 0. & Capwell, D. F., Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion
(Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957).
Istvan, D. F. & Wollman, J. B., Turnover in CPA Firms, The CPA Joumaf uuly 1976) pp. 2 l-25.
Iammers, L.. An Empirical Study of the Validity and Reliability of the Job Descriptive Index for the Measure-
ment of Accountants’ Job Satisfaction (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Winsconsin-Madison. 1975 ).
Lawler, E. E.,Motivution in Work Organizations (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1973).
Leathers, P. E., Staff Retention in Public Accounting Firms, The Journul ofAccountancy (January 1971)
pp. 87-90.
Loeb, S. E. & Gannon, M. J., Need Satisfaction and Staff Retention in large Certified Public Accounting Firms,
The CPA Journal (April 1972) pp. 327-329.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A.. Organizations (New York: John Wiley, 1959).
Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J.. Steinbrenner. K & Brent, D., Statistical Puckugefor the Social Sciences SPAS
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975).
Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M., Organizational, Work and Personnel Factors in Employee Turnover and
Absenteeism, PslychoiogicaI Bulletin ( 1973) pp. 15 l-l 76.
Rhode. J. G., Sorensen, J. E. & Lawler, E. E., An Analysis of Personal Characteristics Related to Professional
StaffTurnover in Public Accounting Firms, Decision Sciences (October 1976) pp. 771-880.
Rhode, J G.. Sorensen, J. E. & Lawler. E. E., Sources of Professional Staff Turnover in Public Accounting
Firms Revealed by the Exit Interview, Accounting. Organizations and Society ( 1977) pp. 165-J 75.
Sorensen, J. E., Professional and Bureaucratic Organization in the Public Accounting Firm, Accounting
Revieu~ (July 196’) pp. 553565.
Sorensen, J. E.. Rhode, J. G. 8r Bawler. E. E., The Generation Gap in Public Accounting, The Journal of
Accountunq (December 1973) pp. 42-50.
Steele. C. G., Discussant’s Response to Sorensen, J. E., Sorensen, T., Rhode, J. & Bawler, E., A Behavioral Study
of Staff Retention in the Public Accounting Profession, Symposium on Auditing Research 1974 (Urbana-
Champaign: University of Illinois, 1976).
Strawser. R. H., Ivancevich. J. M. & Lyon. H. L., A Note on the Job Satisfaction of Accountants in Iarge and
Small CPA Firms, Journal ofAccounting Research (Autumn 1969) pp. 339-345.
Tyra. A.. Staff Turnover in CPA Firms, The Woman CPA (January 1980) pp. 13-28.
Vroom. V. H., U’oork and Moth&on (New York: John Wiley, 1964).
White. G. E. 8i Hellriegel. D.. Attitudes of CPAs Related to Professional Turnover, Journal ofAccountancy
(June 1973) pp. 86-88.
300 MARIA LOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ

APPENDIX A. FACTOR ANALYSIS OF FACET SATISFACTION ITEMS

ORTHOGONAL ROTATION: VARIMAX’

Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ct

Factor 1: Higher needs/work itself

S2Q6 Amount of authority you have 0.71 0.74
S2Q3 Opportunity for freedom &flexibility 0.68 0.6 1
S2Q 10 Extent position uses skills & abilities 0.68 0.63
SlQ5 Extent work is significant 0.65 0.56
S2Q2 Opportunity to gain experience & develop skills 0.55 0.45 0.58
S2Ql Opportunity to see total picture of project 0.54 0.56
S4Q5 Recognition 81 respect from firm members 0.52 0.41 0.76
S2Q9 Sense of accomplishment & self-esteem 0.51 0.61
S4Q6 Extent treated as professional 0.47 0.6 1
S2Q4 Interaction with high-level clients 0.46 0.41
S4Q 14 Association with professional colleagues 0.45 0.53
S2Q8 Opportunity for variety in assignments 0.41 0.50 0.56

Factor 2: Pressures
53410 Tie deadlines 0.84 0.75
S3Ql Number hours worked 0.65 0.64
S3Q9 Distances commute in town 0.62 0.46
S3Q7 Number ofpeople report to at same time 0.53 0.52
S3Qll Number of assignments at same time 0.48 0.42 0.59
S3Q12 Start new job before finishing last 0.48 0.52
S3Q6 Engagement time budgets 0.43 0.48
S5Q5 Timeliness of review 0.38 0.38 0.59

Factor 3: Communication
S4Q3 Exchange with higher levels in Department 0.64 0.73
S4Q7 Exchange with own level in Department 0.64 0.54
S4Q2 Extent feel part of a group 0.56 0.48
S4Q 16 Exchange with other offices 0.48 0.58
S6Q5 Counseling partner familiar with work 0.46 0.54 0.66
S4Q4 Partners’ interest in opinions 0.45 0.40 0.64
SQ6 Manner raises % bonuses determined 0.43 0.64
s4Q5 Recognition&respect from firm members 0.52 0.41 0.46 0.76
S4Q 15 Opportunity to make suggestions 0.39 0.69

Factor 4: Promotion
S7Q 10 Opportunity for advancement 0.74 0.66
S7Q9 Manner promotions determined 0.70 0.66
S7Q6 Availability of upper level positions 0.66 0.59
S7Q3 Extent know when will be promoted 0.55 0.55
S6Ql Feedback received on performance 0.42 0.53 0.68
S6Q2 Knowing what people expect 0.40 0.57
S7Q2 Salary, including bonus 0.38 0.47 0.61
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION 301

APPENDIX A continued

Factors
123456789 10 11 ct

Factor 5: Supervision/evaluution
S5Ql Quality of supervision 0.63 0.66
S5Q3 Consistency of supervision 0.61 0.67
SGQlO Extent fairly evaluated 0.55 0.63
sQ9 Extent evaluation forms completed 0.49 0.42
S5Q2 Training in relation to work assigned 0.45 0.57
S5Q9 Nature of reviewers’ points 0.42 0.43
S5Q5 Timliness of review 0.38 0.38 0.59

Factor6: Office support

S3Q5 Typing services 0.75 0.67
S3Q4 Copying services 0.72 0.58
S3Q3 SecretariaVAdministrativesupport 0.71 0.60
S5Q7 Local office training programs 0.58 0.40 0.53
S7Q8 Fringe benefits (ins., pension, etc.) 0.49 0.46

Factor 7: Staffing
S6Q3 Extent of Rumor Mill in assignments 0.70 0.67
S5Q 12 Input in choosing assignments 0.59 0.68
S6Q4 Extent ofRumor Mill in evaluation 0.57 0.57
S5Q8 Equity in job assignments 0.54 0.53
S5Q 10 System of stalfing assignments 0.47 0.55
S5Q4 Advance notice of assignments 0.46 0.53

Factor 8: Appreciation/participation
S4Q 12 Partners’ expression of appreciation 0.75 0.74
S4Q 13 Consistency of support & appreciation 0.60 0.63
SQl Feedback received on performance 0.42 0.53 0.68
S4Q 15 Opportunity to make suggestions 0.39 0.46 0.69
S7Q4 Feeling of job security 0.46 0.52
S4Q4 Partners’ interest in opinions 0.45 0.40 0.64

Factor 9: Clientrange/assignments
S2Q7 Client range (size, type, industry) 0.66 0.62
S2Q7 Opportunity for variety in assignments 0.41 0.50 0.56
S2Q2 Gain experience & develop skills 0.55 0.45 0.58
S3QI 1 No. ofassignments at same time 0.48 0.42 0.59
S4Ql Extent ofprocedures, policies, rules 0.40 0.46

Factor 10: Financial

S7Q7 MBA pay diiferential 0.55 0.39
s7Q2 Salary, including bonus 0.38 0.47 0.61
S7Q5 Equity in salaries in level 0.45 0.38
S4Q 10 Channels of communication understood 0.4 1 0.47

Factor 11: Counseling/training

S6Q5 Counseling partner familiar with work 0.46 0.54 0.66
S6Q8 Guidance from counseling partner 0.52 0.53
S5Ql1 National Firm trainingprograms 0.49 0.33
SSQ- Local office training programs 0.58 0.40 0.53
302 MARlA LOMBARD1 BULLEN and ERIC G. FLAMHOLTZ

APPENDIX A continued

Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ct

Eigenvalues 19.6 3.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1

Percent ofVariance 50.3 9.8 7.0 6.8 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.8 3.1 2.9 2.7

l The cutoff point for inclusion is a factor loading of at least 0.38. Items are shown in descending order of magnitude for
each factor. Factors are shown in the order from the computer analysis.
The questionnaire section and number are indicated in the far left column.

Ct = Communality.