pay inequity sensitivity at the university of maine at fort kent
TRANSCRIPT
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 1
Running head: PAY INEQUITY SENSITIVITY AT UMFK
Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent
Anthony Gauvin
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 2
Abstract
Constructing equitable compensation systems in higher education
is a great concern for administrators and financial managers
wishing to retain quality employees. The paper examines the
applicability of Equity Theory (Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962) in
developing compensation systems for institutes of higher
education and the extent to which Equity Theory predicts job
satisfaction across certain age demographics in a small public
university. A survey of the employees at The University of Maine
at Fort Kent, a small public university in a rural setting, was
conducted and evaluated to determine the impact of pay inequity
on job satisfaction and individual productivity both in
aggregate and within certain demographic boundaries. Results are
supportive of Equity Theory predictions with some exceptions.
The paper also presents some plausible historical explanations
for the deviations from expected outcomes and develops
directions for further research in this area.
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 3
Pay inequity sensitivity at the University of Maine at Fort Kent
Statement of Problem and Hypotheses
It has generally been accepted in management theory that
employee compensation affects job satisfaction and individual
productivity. The ability to predict employee job satisfaction
and productivity as a consequence of pay equity structures
allows senior administrators to construct pay systems that are
both cost efficient and effective. While there are several
existing theories that predict employee sensitivity and
subsequent behavioral and attitudinal responses to pay inequity,
the theory explored and utilized for this research study is
Equity Theory (Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962).
This research study attempts to determine if Equity Theory
applies in the domain of university employees in a small public
university and to what extent are the results predicted by
Equity Theory affected by the age of the employees. The ability
to apply the principles of Equity Theory in this domain will
allow financial managers to construct equitable pay systems that
are cost efficient yet produce desired results in terms of
employee satisfaction and productivity. The goal is provide pay
systems that have minimal perceived negative inequity conditions
(increased satisfaction) with little to no perceived positive
inequity (cost efficient). In layman’s terms, the goal is pay
employees enough to keep them happy but do not pay them too
much. It is also important to know what, if any, variations in
pay level sensitivity exist across demographics boundaries. If
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 4
there is a demographic group that is more sensitivity to pay
inequity than other groups, more careful deliberations are
warranted in establishing pay schedules for that group.
For the purpose of this research study, two hypotheses will
be tested. The first hypothesis, H1, is Equity Theory does apply
to this research domain and that employee satisfaction and
individual productivity measures will compare to existing
published empirical research on Equity Theory. The second
hypothesis, H2, is that equity sensitivity is higher when the
employee is younger than 30 years old than when the employee is
over 50.
Related literature
There are many theories for how to use pay as a
motivational tool. In a recent publication, Patricia M. Buhler
(2003) describes four classic motivational theories; (a)
Thorndike’s law of Effect, (b)Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, (c)
Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygienes, and (d) Equity Theory. Also
of value, is an article written by Ambrose and Kulik (1999) that
is a summation of over 200 empirical research articles on
employee work motivation published in the 1990’s. In their
paper, Ambrose & Kulik create a taxonomy of over twenty
motivational theories into two principal categories, (a)
traditional and (b) modern. Of the all the possibilities, Equity
Theory, a traditional motivational theory, is more analogous to
current situation at the University of Maine at Fort Kent.
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 5
Equity Theory, also known as Justice Theory, was first
developed by J. S. Adams in the early 1960’s and states that
perceived inequities create employee dissonance or tension which
the employee will seek to relieve through changes in attitude
(job satisfaction) or changes in behavior (modification of work
effort) (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Perceived underpayment
(negative inequity) causes tensions that tend to reduce
productivity. To a somewhat lesser degree, perceived overpayment
(positive inequity) will also cause tensions that tend to reduce
productivity (Perry, 1993).
Several researchers in the area of Equity Theory have
produces results that are important to this study. Jerald
Greenburg was one of the first researchers to begin quantifying
tension created by inequity both in experimentation (Greenberg,
1989) and in a plea for further research in this area
(Greenberg, 1990). Michelle Brown, another researcher, is trying
to determine the reactions to pay inequity (both positive and
negative) on employee pay satisfaction as a function of how the
employee compares his pay against a known reference. The
researcher lists five possible pay referents: (a) market, (b)
organizational, (c) financial, (d) social and (e) historical.
The author theorizes that reactions will vary depending on which
referent is used and whether or not the employee is a union
member. Michelle Brown also established the negative correlation
between negative inequities and pay level satisfaction and
positive correlations between positive pay inequities and pay
level satisfaction. These results will be important for
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 6
establishing applicatory of Equity Theory to this study’s
research domain (Brown, 2001).
Linda S. Perry introduced research that has a direct
correspondence to this study since she used similar
methodologies and produced results that can be used a population
normal for comparisons to the results generated by this study.
Her research measured results of both positive and negative pay
inequity in a national survey of African-Americans (Perry,
1993). Additional material is derived from Sutton and Bergerson
(2001) that allows translations from Perry’s research domain
into the domain under study in this paper.
Equity theory is not without its detractors, using some
very solid empirical research; Fossum and Moore (1975) were able
to conclude:
As equity experiments have used decreasingly overt
inductions, the hypothesized inequity effects have declined
or failed to materialize. The preponderance of evidence at
this point indicates that equity, (as hypothesized by Adams,
(Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962)), is not a powerful motivating
influence or highly valent outcomes unless what is assumed
to constitute fairness is explicitly defined to experimental
subjects. Further, the proposed plethora of modes for the
reduction of inequity and the requirement that all inequity
is perceptually-based diminish the practical usefulness of
the theory for the specific predication of behavior even if
the situational contingencies are specified. (p. 145)
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 7
Key to the discussion in their paper is that most equity
experiments do not have control measures and as such, results
are speculative. The results in Fossum and Moore (1975) do not
extend to non-experimentation measures such as the survey that
is conducted in Perry (1993), Brown (2001) and this particular
study.
Data and Research Methodology
An anonymous survey was constructed (see Appendix A) and
distributed to all 109 full time employees of the University of
Maine at Fort Kent via campus mail. The employees were asked to
answer seven questions and return the survey to the researcher
via campus mail. The sample group consists of 33 faculty
members, 35 professional staff and 41 classified staff
employees. There were 60 surveys returned from 19 professionals
(54.3%), 17 faculty (51.5%) and 24 classified staff (58.5%) for
55% return rate for the survey. The survey responses rate was
somewhat low due since the survey being conducted in June, a
period when most faculty and many staff are on leave or
vacation.
For each of the returned surveys, the results of the seven
questions were mapped to a variable to measure either an
attitudinal or behavioral outcome in response to negative or
positive pay inequities or demographic information (see Appendix
D for the encoded data). The results were inserted into a
Microsoft Access Database and then transferred to SPSS software
for analysis. The seven variables are described in the Table 1.
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 8
Table 1
Research variables
Variable Description Possible values
NPIST Behavioral outcome of
negative pay inequity
based on a theoretical
situation
1 = improve performance
2 = Some improvement
3 = no change
4 = some lesser performance
5 = lesser performance
PPIST Behavioral outcome
positive pay inequity
based on theoretical
situation
1 = improve performance
2 = Some improvement
3 = no change
4 = some lesser performance
5 = lesser performance
NPISP Attitudinal outcome of
negative pay inequity
based on personal
experience
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree
3 = natural
4 = disagree
5 = strongly disagree
PPISP Attitudinal outcome of
Positive Pay inequity
based on personal
experience
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree
3 = natural
4 = disagree
5 = strongly disagree
JC Job Classification 1 = professional staff
2 = faculty
3 = classified staff
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 9
AGE Age of respondent 1 = under 30
2 = 31 to 40
3 = 41 to 50
4 = over 50
LE Length of employment 1 = under 5 years
2= 5 to 10 years
3 = 11 to 10 years
4 = over 20 years
Questions one and two of the survey measure whether an
individual is willing to work hard or less hard in response to
positive or negative pay inequity. A higher numerical response
corresponds to lesser amounts of effort, which is viewed as a
negative consequence. Question two corresponds to a negative
inequity situation and questions two corresponds to a positive
inequity. A quick look at the means and distributions for
questions one and two produce the following; (a) question one
has a mean that suggests negative behavioral consequence for
negative inequity, M = 3.27 with SD = 0.821 and (b) question two
has a mean that suggests a positive behavioral consequence for
positive inequity, M = 2.68 and SD = 0.567.
Questions three and four of the survey measure an
individual’s agreement to the belief there exists positive
relationships between pay inequity and performance. These
questions test individual attitudinal consequence to pay
inequity. Question three corresponds to a positive inequity
situation and questions four corresponds to a negative inequity
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 10
situation. Higher scores on question three correspond to
positive agreement for positive attitudinal results to positive
inequity (more pay means more work). Higher scores on question
four correspond to positive agreement for negative attitudinal
results to negative inequity (less pay means less work) A quick
look at the means and distributions for questions three and four
produce the following; (a) question three has a mean that
suggests positive agreement with the positive consequence for
positive inequity, M = 3.48 with SD = 1.049 and (b) question
four has a mean that suggests a positive agreement with the
negative consequence for negative inequity, M = 3.32 and SD =
1.081.
In order to test that the means for the four questions are
significant and not just coincidental variations for a normal
population, one-sample T tests were performed on the means
against a test value of three, which equates to a neutral
position (no consequence), for all four questions with 95%
confidence interval. Since we are just concerned with deviations
from neutral position, tendency and not absolute measure, and we
are not comparing one mean against another mean, one-sample T
tests are appropriate for this analysis. In all four questions,
the results are found to be significant and the measured
tendencies should be valid. The results are described in Table
2.
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 11
Job Classification
StaffFacultyProfessional
Mean Q1
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
Age
Under 30
30-40
41-50
Over 50
Table 2
One sample T-test results
Question t Df Significance
2-tailed
Mean
Diff.
95% CI
Lower
95% CI
Upper
1 2.517 59 .015 .27 .05 .48
2 -4.324 59 .000 .32 -.46 -.17
3 3.567 59 .001 .48 .21 .75
4 2.268 59 .027 .32 .04 .60
Analyzing the data using subgroups delineated by the
demographic category values of age and job classification we get
following visual results in figures 1 through 4.
Figure 1. Means for NPIST (Q1) for age groupings within job
classifications
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 12
Job Classification
StaffFacultyProfessional
Mean q2
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Age
Under 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
Over 50
Figure 2. Means for PPIST (Q2) for age groupings within job
classifications
Figure 3. Means for PPISP (Q3) for age groupings within job
classifications
Job Classification
StaffFacultyProfessional
Mean q3
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
AGE
Under 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
Over 50
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 13
Figure 4. Means for NPISP (Q4) for age groupings within job
classifications
Note: Graphs produced by SPSS for Windows Student Version
software, by SPSS, Inc. 11.0
The results suggest that our second hypothesis, that pay
inequity sensitivity is higher when the employee is younger than
30 years old than pay inequity sensitivity when the employee is
over 50, may be supportable for staff and professional employees
but not for faculty. Further analysis of the data using Spearman
rank association (see Appendix B) showed no relationship between
age and result for any of our four research variables (a) NPISP,
(b) PPISP, (c) NPIST and (d) PPIST. Performing the same analysis
on all data except for the data collected from faculty members
(see Appendix C) show linear correlation between Length of
Employment and PPISP, rs = 0.359 with a two-tailed significance
of 0.010, but their was no evidence of linear correlation
between AGE and any other measured variable in the study.
Job Classification
StaffFacultyProfessional
Mean q4
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
AGE
Under 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
Over 50
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 14
Results and Conclusions
Statistical analysis of the means of question one through
four has allowed us to say the following for the employees at
the University of Maine at Fort Kent. Negative pay inequity
tends to have a negative impact on job performance. Positive pay
inequity has a positive impact on job performance. Employees
tend to agree that more pay should mean more work and that less
pay should mean less work. While these results seem like common
sense, it is important to understand the results generated from
study mirror the results generated from two other empirical
studies on Equity Theory, Brown (2001) and Perry (1993). This is
sufficient to support H1. Equity Theory does apply to this
research domain and that employee satisfaction and individual
productivity measures do compare to existing published empirical
research on Equity Theory.
The second hypothesis, H2, is not supported. There is no
statistical evidence in this study that suggest any correlation
between age and pay inequity sensitivity. There seem to be some
correlation between length of employment and pay inequity
sensitivity but since the relationship was not the focus of this
study, no conclusions should be drawn. Further research will be
necessary to explore that phenomenon.
The results of his study were somewhat confounded by
previous inequity studies that were performed in the last ten
years across the entire University of Maine system. It was
discovered from some anecdotal accounts from more senior
employees that there was a serious problems with pay inequity in
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 15
the University of Maine system and that four comprehensive
studies (at a cost of over $100,000) had been conducted since
that time with minimal corrective results.
Results from the four studies varied. Women faculty
members, with the exception of the nursing faculty, were found
to be under-paid compared to their male counterparts at the
University of Maine at Fort Kent (Joint Gender Equity Committee,
2000). The professional staff union, UMPSA, along with
University of Maine Human resources staff, conducted two
studies. The two studies had very little empirical evidence and
tended to be a collection of observations with subsequent
recommendations. The following was the significant outcome for
the professional staff inequity studies; “However, the committee
recognizes that there continues to be a need to improve the way
in which salaries for unit positions are determined” (Bigney and
Skaggs 1998, p. 3). The Associated COLT Staff of the University
of Maine, ASCUM, which is the collective bargaining organization
of the University of Maine systems classified staff, conducted
the fourth and most recent study. Their report produces the most
damming conclusions.
The University needs to recognize that it has a compensation
system that does not pay its employees in the COLT unit
fairly or adequately. The compensation structure leaves too
many employees underpaid and many close to poverty levels. …
Newly hired employees and even management no longer view the
classified positions at the University as career positions.
(vonHerrlich, Lowell, & Bonk, 2002, p. 16)
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 16
As result of the inequitable pay structures, those
employees that had the greatest dissatisfaction with the pay
inequities quit and those that remained had become less
sensitive to existing pay inequities. Many of the older
employees that had greater dissatisfaction with pay inequities
had remained employed to protect their retirement and tenure.
These results are an eventual consequence of pay inequity as
predicted by Equity Theory (Greenberg, 1989 & 1990).
These prior studies did not allow an unbiased current study
and the results of this study’s survey were affected. The sample
group is not representative of any larger populations and any
conclusions drawn from this research should not be used beyond
the studied domain. Knowledge of the previous studies was not
factored into the research and the results are skewed. Further
studies using the four previous equity studies as a baseline
should be conducted to determine what, if any, corrective
measures may still need to be applied. Equity Theory could serve
as a model for that further research.
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 17
References
Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1962). The relationship of
worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage
inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 161-164.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces:
Motivation research in the 1990's. Journal of Management,
25(3), 231-292. Retrieved June 19, 2004, from EBSCO
Research Databases Web Site:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1999-03301-
001&db=psyh
Bigney, T. B., & Skaggs, M. C. (1998). Final report of the Joint
Committee to Oversee the Professional Salary Evaluation.
Retrieved June 21, 2004 from
http://umpsa.maine.edu/jointfinal.html
Brown, M. (2001). Unequal pay, unequal responses? Pay referents
and their implications for pay level satisfaction. Journal
of Management Studies, 38(6), 879-896. Retrieved May 31,
2004, from Business Source Premier Web Site:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=5053263&db=buh
Buhler, P. M. (2003). Managing in the new Millennium.
Supervision, 64(12), 20-23. Retrieved June 9, 2004, from
Business Source Premier Web Site:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10917954&db=f5h
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 18
Fossum, J. A., & Moore, M. L. (1975). The effects of perceived
and actual inputs on the recognitions of over and under pay
inequity without experimental induction. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 146-147. Retrieved June 18, 2004,
from Business Source Premier Web Site:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4981038&db=duh
Greenberg, J. (1989). Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in
response to underpayment inequity. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(1), 174-184. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from
Business Source Premier Web Site:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4408378&db=buh
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today,
and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-435.
Retrieved June 21, 2004, from Business Source Premier Web
Site: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=5711072&db=buh
Joint Gender Equity Committee (October 16, 2000). Gender Equity
Report. Retrieved June 19, 2004 from
http://www.maine.edu/pdf/genderequity.pdf
Perry, L. S. (1993). Effects of inequity on job satisfaction and
self-evaluation in a national sample of African-American
workers. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(4), 565-573.
Retrieved June 19, 2004, from EBSCO Research Databases Web
Site: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1994-11720-
001&db=psyh
Pay Inequity Sensitivity 19
Sutton, T. P., & Bergerson, P. J. (2001). Faculty compensation
systems: Impact on the quality of higher education. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved June 19, 2004, from ERIC database
(ED464522).
vonHerrlich, P., Lowell, L., & Bonk, J. (2002). Personal
Economies: Living on the edge with nothing left to give.
Retrieved June 21, 2004 from
http://earth.prohosting.com/acsum/personaleconomies.pdf
Appendix A
1
Survey Questionnaire
Hi, I am Tony Gauvin and I need your help. I am conducting
this survey as partial requirements for a Masters in Business
Administration. Participation in this research is voluntary and
by filling out the survey, you agree to participate in this
research. Please read the paragraph below and answer the
questions given. There are no right answers and I am interested
in everyone’s opinions. Please circle the answers you find the
most consistent with your opinion and please be honest. Your
individual answers will never be disclosed or even individually
recorded. I will have completed my study by July, 2004 and will
have results for anyone that is interested. If you have any
question please contact me at x7519 or [email protected]. When you
have completed this survey, please return it to me via campus
mail (just refold and place my name on the outside) or place in
the mail slot on my office door (216 Nadeau Hall). Thanks for
your help.
There are two employees working at the same company. They
have the same job classification and started work at the company
on the same day. Evaluations of the two employees are similar
yet one employee, let’s call him Employee A, makes 10% more than
Employee B. Management had always kept employee pay records
confidential but a recent executive decision has made all
employee pay records public.
Appendix A
2
1) Imagine that you are Employee B and you have just discovered that Employee A makes 10% more than you do for the same job.
How does this affect you performance at work?
a) It would not have any impact on my job performance b) I would try to improve my job performance. c) I would lower my job performance. d) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job
performance but my desire to work hard at my job would be
diminished.
e) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job performance but I would try to work harder to lessen the
perceived difference in mine and Employee A’s
productivity.
2) Imagine that you are Employee A and you have just discovered that Employee B makes 10% less than you do for the same job.
How does this affect you performance at work?
a) It would not have any impact on my job performance b) I would try to improve my job performance. c) I would lower my job performance. d) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job
performance but my desire to work hard at my job would be
diminished.
e) I would try not to have the pay difference affect my job performance but I would try to work harder to lessen the
perceived difference in mine and Employee B’s
productivity.
3) A person tends to work harder if paid more than another. a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree
4) A person tends to work less if paid less than another. a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree
Appendix A
3
5) What is your Job Classification? a) Professional b) Faculty c) Classified Staff
6) What is your Age bracket? a) Under 30 b) 31-40 c) 41-50 d) 50 and over
7) How long have you been employed at your current position a) Under 5 years b) 5-10 years c) 11-20 years d) over 20 years
Appendix B
1
Spearman’s test of Correlation for all data
Correlations
Q1 q2 q3 q4 q7 q5 q6
Spearman's
rho
Q1 Coefficient 1.000 .051 -.019 -.329 .128 .180 .011
Sig. (2-tailed) . .699 .883 .010 .328 .168 .935
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
q2 Coefficient .051 1.000 -.011 -.131 .117 .205 .177
Sig. (2-tailed) .699 . .936 .317 .375 .116 .175
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Q3 Coefficient -.019 -.011 1.000 .572 .169 -.023 -.059
Sig. (2-tailed) .883 .936 . .000 .196 .860 .656
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
q4 Coefficient -.329 -.131 .572 1.000 .186 -.006 -.153
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .317 .000 . .155 .962 .244
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
q7 Coefficient .128 .117 .169 .186 1.000 .141 .568
Sig. (2-tailed) .328 .375 .196 .155 . .284 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
q5 Coefficient .180 .205 -.023 -.006 .141 1.000 .035
Sig. (2-tailed) .168 .116 .860 .962 .284 . .788
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
q6 Coefficient .011 .177 -.059 -.153 .568 .035 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .935 .175 .656 .244 .000 .788 .
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Appendix C
1
Spearman’s test of Correlation for all but faculty data
Q1 q2 q3 q4 q7 q5 q6
Spearman's
rho
Q1 Coefficient 1.000 .142 -.036 -.218 .185 .241 -.031
Sig. (2-tailed) .365 .817 .159 .234 .119 .841
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Q2 Coefficient .142 1.000 -.026 -.098 .160 .252 .178
Sig. (2-tailed) .365 . .869 .530 .306 .104 .255
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Q3 Coefficient -.036 -.026 1.000 .708 .359 -.031 -.055
Sig. (2-tailed) .817 .869 . .000 .018 .844 .728
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Q4 Coefficient -.218 -.098 .708 1.000 .292 -.028 -.157
Sig. (2-tailed) .159 .530 .000 . .058 .857 .313
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
q7 Coefficient .185 .160 .359 .292 1.000 .176 .585
Sig. (2-tailed) .234 .306 .018 .058 . .260 .000
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
q5 Coefficient .241 .252 -.031 -.028 .176 1.000 .063
Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .104 .844 .857 .260 . .690
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
q6 Coefficient -.031 .178 -.055 -.157 .585 .063 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .841 .255 .728 .313 .000 .690 .
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Appendix D
1
Encoded Survey Data NPI ST PPI ST PPI SP NPI SP JC AGE LENE
4 1 4 4 1 1 1
4 3 3 3 3 1 1
4 2 4 4 1 2 2
4 2 3 3 3 2 1
2 3 2 2 1 3 1
3 3 3 3 1 4 1
2 2 2 3 1 4 2
3 3 3 3 2 3 4
2 3 3 3 1 2 1
2 2 4 4 3 3 3
4 3 4 2 2 3 1
4 3 4 4 3 2 3
3 3 3 3 2 4 3
4 3 3 2 2 3 4
4 3 3 3 2 3 3
2 3 3 4 3 2 1
4 3 4 4 3 2 2
4 2 4 4 1 4 4
3 3 4 4 1 3 2
3 3 1 1 3 4 3
3 3 4 2 1 4 2
2 2 4 4 3 1 1
4 3 4 4 2 4 3
4 3 3 2 2 4 1
3 3 1 2 3 1 1
3 3 4 3 3 4 3
3 3 2 5 3 4 4
4 3 5 5 3 4 4
3 3 4 4 2 2 1
4 3 4 3 2 4 4
2 2 4 4 3 4 1
3 3 4 4 3 3 4
4 3 5 3 3 4 4
4 3 4 2 2 4 2
3 3 5 5 3 1 1
4 3 4 4 3 2 2
1 3 4 4 1 2 1
4 3 2 2 3 3 1
2 1 4 4 1 2 2
4 3 4 4 3 1 2
3 3 4 4 3 4 4
4 3 1 1 1 2 1
3 3 5 3 2 4 3
4 3 4 2 2 2 2
3 3 4 4 2 3 1
4 3 4 4 1 3 3
4 2 2 2 1 1 1
3 3 5 5 1 2 3
4 2 2 2 3 4 4
4 1 4 4 2 4 4
3 3 4 4 1 4 4
3 3 4 4 1 3 3
2 2 5 5 1 1 2
4 2 4 4 2 2 1
4 3 4 2 3 3 3
4 3 3 2 3 3 1
2 2 4 4 1 2 1
3 3 4 4 3 3 4
2 3 2 5 2 4 4
4 2 1 1 2 3 3