analyzing job satisfaction level of the academic staff

International SAMANM Journal of Marketing and Management ISSN 2308-2399 July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2

12

Analyzing Job Satisfaction Level of the Academic

Staff: A Case Study of Public and Private Universities

of Punjab, Pakistan

Ms. Iram Saba

MS Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, The Islamia University Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Email: [email protected]

Ms. Ozaira Zafar

MS Scholar and Visiting Lecturer in Department of Management Sciences, The Islamia

University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore job satisfaction level of teachers in both public

and private universities. Author has aimed to collect data from previous researches regarding

various factors and then making a conceptual framework out of it and then to conduct an

empirical study regarding these factors. Moreover, author has aimed to suggest and recommend

solutions through which job satisfaction level of teachers could be raised.

Methodology: Author has firstly collected data from previous researches to segregate various

factors and then has conducted primary research through floating both questionnaires and taking

interviews from respondents. The target population is teachers of two public and two private

universities of Pakistan. From this sample has been deduced and data has been collected on basis

of convenience. Results are further analyzed by using SPSS software.

Findings: It is deduced that appropriate compensation, equivalent promotion opportunities, job

security, suitable working conditions and work itself can positively influence on job satisfaction

level of employees in both public and private universities of Pakistan.

Contribution: This study is beneficial for policy makers, management, faculty members of

universities and even the students will be benefited if job satisfaction of teachers could be

achieved.

Keywords: Public university, private university, job satisfaction, job performance.


13

1. Introduction

Education is one of the crucial elements in the life of all the human beings. According to the

Noordin and Jusoff (2009) societal expectations depends upon the successful running of

education system. The success of education system depends upon the involvement, effort and the

contribution of the academic staff or their professional expertise. Job satisfaction, retention and

commitment to the organization are essential for all the academic institutions. Moreover, higher

job satisfaction of the faculty results in the healthy and positive climate of the university.

Positive climate such as healthy working conditions, relationship with colleagues, support of

research and teaching, appropriate salary, promotion opportunities etc. of the university teachers

not only boost the job satisfaction of the staff but also overall productivity of the educational

institute fosters.

There are many important concepts at work environment that help the workers to do their work

efficiently and effectively. Job satisfaction is one of them. It is the feeling of happiness that ones

feel while performing that job. A lot of research work has been done on this topic because

according to the researcher the productivity of any organization significantly depends upon the

satisfaction level of the employees of that organization. If the employees of any organization are

satisfied with their work they will perform better and they will put their maximum effort to do

that work. So the ultimate results come in the form of success of that organization.

The major aim of this paper is to explore those factors that can affect the satisfaction level of

university teachers and in light of the results author has further provided suggestions and

recommendations to improve satisfaction level of teachers at tertiary academic institutes. The

target population of this research is faculty members of universities. Author has conducted a

comparative study in public and private universities of Pakistan and results are described in

detail in the latter sections. This research is fruitful because it is mainly done in underdeveloped

country named as Pakistan and very less literature is present in under developed countries.

Moreover, this study is beneficial for management and faculty members of universities and even

for the policy makers of the institute in specific and country in general.

2. Literature review

2.1 Introduction to job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a momentous concept that helps the employees to do their work with more

responsibility and passion. Various researchers have defined job satisfaction in various manners.

As according to Locke (1976) it is The sense of achievement and arrogance felt by employees

who get pleasure from their employment and complete it well. Or it could define as an

encouraging emotional condition resulting from the work (Locke, 1976; Spector, 1997).

Similarly, Robbins (2003) state that an individual common thought toward his job is also termed

as job satisfaction. The attitude can be positive or negative. The individuals who have positive

attitude towards their jobs are more satisfied than the individuals who have negative attitude. It

can be said that the individuals are dissatisfied with their jobs that have negative attitude towards

it.


14

Job satisfaction is a very essential concept in any wok setting. Because the productivity of human

resources depends upon their satisfaction level and satisfied recruits remain within the

organization for longer time, while in case of dissatisfaction productivity will be lower and

individuals are more inclined to leave the job.

In the same way Lawler (1973) defines that job satisfaction has only one-dimension. Employees

are either pleased or unpleased with their work means that if they are satisfied with their work

they will be happy and if they are unsatisfied they will be unhappy. But other scholars as Smith,

Kendall and Hulin (1969) described that job satisfaction is a multi-dimensional concept, there

can be many factors that can make an employee more or less satisfied with the work as someone

might be extra satisfied with salary but could be least satisfied with supervisor behavior or

availability of promotion opportunities in an organization.

There are various factors that influence the job satisfaction intensity of the employees such as

pay, promotion opportunities, and relationship with colleagues, fringe benefits, working

environment and recognition (Hunjra et al., 2010). If someone is satisfied with even one of the

dimension it doesnt meant that he is satisfied with all other dimensions as well. For example if a

teacher is satisfied with the working environment it doesnt means he is also satisfied with the

salary package that he or she obtained after one month. Hence either provision of only one factor

cannot guarantee satisfaction of employee from job provision of all factors is crucial for

employee job satisfaction.

Moreover, Hunjra et al. (2010) described that high level of job satisfaction also leads toward the

low rate of absenteeism and turnover. In other words it can be said if someone is satisfied with

his job then he will be more regular and punctual and loyal in performing his job tasks. This

regularity and punctuality is also critical for university teachers.

Therefore, the concept of satisfaction has great importance at the education sector (Siddique et

al., 2011). Because students are one of the precious assets of our society so it is necessary that its

academic staff must be satisfied with their daily work so that they can perform their duties with

dedication.

2.2 Definitions of Job Satisfaction

Generally job satisfaction can be defined as a positive or negative feeling that the workers feel

about their work (Locke, 1976; Odom, Boxx, and Dunn, 1990). It is the satisfaction of

employees about the general aspects of job like pay, promotion, relationship with management,

job itself, and progression in the job etc. (Noordin and Jusoff, 2009). Definition of job

satisfaction is the sense of achievement and arrogance felt by employees who get pleasure from

their employment and complete it well. According to this definition it is the feeling of

accomplishment that ones feel after the completion of his work.

It could also be defined as an encouraging emotional condition resulting from the work (Locke,

1976; Spector, 1997). A positive emotional state that gives the feeling of happiness to the

employees when they complete their work is called job satisfaction. In the same way there are

different approaches that define the job satisfaction in different manner. An individual common

attention or attitude toward his or her job is also called job satisfaction (Robbins, 2003). The

attitude can be positive or negative. The individuals who have positive attitude towards their jobs


15

are more satisfied with their jobs as compared to the individuals who have negative attitude. It

can be said that the employees are satisfied with their job if they have the positive attitude and

are dissatisfied with their job if they have negative attitude towards it.

But on the other hand, Lawler (1973) defined that job satisfaction has only one-dimension.

Employees are either delighted or unhappy with their work. He further added that job satisfaction

has only one dimension, employees are either satisfied or dissatisfied with their work. If they are

satisfied with their work they will be happy and if they are dissatisfied they will be unhappy

from their job. There is no third option at any work place according to him.

In contrast to this other researchers as Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) stated it as multi-

dimensional concept. Moreover, Baloch (2009) quoted in his research paper that job satisfaction

is the state of mind of any employees which is pleasurable for him.

2.3 Variables of Job Satisfaction at Higher Education

Various researches have been conducted to find out the factors that impact level of job

satisfaction in an organization as various researchers have quoted their views in different manner

(Onu et al., 2005; Tutuncu and Kozak, 2006; Sur et al., 2004; Greenberg, 1986; Wiedmar, 1998;

Knowles, 1978; Salmond, 2006; DeVaney and Chen, 2003).

According to Noordin and Jusoff (2009) the behavior of the academic staff is affected by the

working environment that must be safe and healthy, career progression, administration support,

salary, work teams, peers and the job itself. Along with these factors they also need autonomy in

their decisions because making decisions independently have great importance and if universities

are not giving importance to their employees then they may lose sense of owing the decisions

and working accordingly.

Similarly, Briggs and Richardson (1992) quoted that academic staff would feel demoralized and

devalued if they are not allowed to take part in decision making process. Ultimately this thing

leads toward low motivation and satisfaction. It may leads toward negative consequences like

decrease in productivity, turnover among the potential employees, deliberate absenteeism, lack

of interest, lethargy and low performance at the work place (Noordin and Jusoff, 2009).

According to them it may result in lose-lose situation which is ultimately harmful for the health

of any organization.

On the other hand, Siddique et al. (2002) indicated that salaries, fringe benefits, security of

service, chance of promotion and social status are some factors that have relationship with the

job satisfaction of the teachers. Some of them have significant while other have insignificant

relation with the dependent variable that is job satisfaction.

In the same way job satisfaction has a significant and clear relationship with the pay, promotion,

working conditions, fringe benefits, support of research, gender and support of teaching, as

suggested by Santhapparaj & Alam (2005).

Work itself, supervision, salary, working conditions, companies policies and procedures,

opportunities of promotion and coworkers are variables indicated by Alam et al. (2005) that have

considerable association with the job satisfaction at work place.


16

In line to this, Smith et al. (1969) also described in their job description index that working

condition, coworkers, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and work itself are some factors

that affect the satisfaction intensity of the teachers along with the above factors discussed by the

other researchers. In contrast to this, Lacy & Sheehan (1997) identified that teaching, job

security, promotion prospects, academic freedom, and management are variables of job

satisfaction. These variables may help to indicate the satisfaction level of academic staff.

On the other hand Bayram et al. (2010) found that burnout, stress and depression have a negative

impact on the job satisfaction. Job satisfaction may decrease in the presence of these which lead

towards the absenteeism and turnover.

The conceptual framework below is achieved through the stated researches above.

Figure 1.

Work itself

Salary

Promotion opportunities

Job security

Working condition

Employee job satisfaction


17

3. Methodology

The basic intention of this research work is to explore the variables of the job satisfaction of the

academic staff. Authors have achieved this goal partially by studying the previous research work

and by pointing out various factors which have an effect on the satisfaction level of the faculty

members at university level. Another objective of this research is to explore the level of the

satisfaction for this purpose author has used a five point likert scale that have range from

strongly satisfied to strongly dissatisfy(1=strongly dissatisfied to 5=strongly satisfied).

Descriptive statistics is used to analyze the data by using the SPSS.

Respondents were asked to show their response regarding the factors of the job satisfaction

which the author mentioned in the questionnaire and also asked to tell about the other factors in

addition to the factors included in the questionnaire. It means that both quantitative and

qualitative information is collected and analyzed in this research. Some categorical information

is also collected from the respondents to support the reasoning related to the job satisfaction.

4. Finding and discussion

4.1 Analysis of the Work Itself

Factors of the job

satisfaction Types of institutes z Sig. (2 tailed)

Public

Universities Private Universities

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Work Itself

4.22 0.615 4.46 0.912 -1.680 0.096

The mean score for public universities is 4.22 and for private universities it is 4.46 and the

standard deviation is .615 and .912 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is -1.680 with

p-value .096. As the p-value i.e. 0.096 is greater than the level of significance 0.05, it is

concluded that there is no considerable variation between the job satisfaction of the public and

private employees as far as this factor is concerned. Thus the Null Hypothesis has been accepted

at 5% level of significance.

These results indicate that there is no considerable distinction between the mean of the public

and private universities. Most of the respondents are satisfied with their work. It means that they

have joined this profession as their own choice. So they are interested to do the actual activity of

their job that is teaching. As discussed by Santhepparaj & Alam (2005) an employees job

satisfaction is a function of the personal uniqueness and the exclusivity of the job itself. Similarly

work itself is the most motivating feature at the work place for the faculty members. Other

factors also could have impact on their satisfaction like most of the respondents are female

having master degree and also at the initial stage of their career so they are satisfied with their

work because they are working in university at the post of a lecturer which is a factor of

satisfaction in comparison of a school or college.


18

Some respondents are not satisfied with their job the reason behind this might be their lower rank

in accordance to their qualification or any other factor that can affect their satisfaction like poor

working conditions or lower salary etc.

4.2 Analysis of the Salary

Factors of the

job

satisfaction Types of institutes z

Sig. (2

tailed)

Public

Universities

Private

Universities

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Salary

3.79 0.942 3.67 0.790 0.722 0.471


standard deviation is .942 and .790 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is .722 with


concluded that there is no considerable distinction between the job satisfaction of the public and

private employees as for as salary is concerned. This means that Null Hypothesis has been

accepted at 5% level of significance.

These results indicate that there is no considerable variation between the mean scores of public

and private universities. The value of the mean shows that their satisfaction level falls between

the neutral and satisfied region. Material rewards are much essential in job satisfaction. Along

with their primary requirements wealth meets luxury wishes and desires of people (Ozdemir,

2009). According to the many researchers a productive relationship exists between salary and

satisfaction of job. Above results also confirm this relation that satisfaction with the salary also

increases the satisfaction with the work itself.

Demographic characteristic also have impact on their satisfaction most of the respondents having

masters degree holds a post of lecturer and they are at the initial stage of their career so they are

satisfied with their salary because they have an opportunity to obtain more salary by

advancement in the job.

Some respondents are dissatisfied with the salary, the increasing rate of inflation and the unstable

situation of the country might be the reason of their dissatisfaction.


19

4.3 Analysis of the Promotion Opportunities

Factors of the job


Public

Universities

Private

Universities

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Promotion

Opportunities 3.68 1.032 3.67 0.929 0.074 0.942

As the results indicate that the mean score for public universities is 3.68 and for private

universities it is 3.67 and the standard deviation is 1.032 and .929 respectively. The z-score for

equality of means is .074 with p-value 0.942. As the p-value i.e. 0.942 is greater than the level of

significance 0.05, it is concluded that there is no notable difference between the job satisfaction

of the public and private employees as for as promotion opportunities is concerned. It is proved

that Null Hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.

These results indicate that there is no major variation between the two mean scores. The

satisfaction level of the academic staff about the promotion opportunities is almost same. But

their satisfaction lies between the satisfied and neutral response because in the public scenario

they have promotion opportunities but with seniority base not on the base of talent. And in the

private sector they have minor chance but have higher salaries that is a major reason of their

satisfaction.

Above results can be supported with the help of literature such as suggested by Kosteas (n.d.)

promotion expectations also effect job satisfaction, workers who believe a promotion is possible

in the next two year report higher job satisfaction. On the other hand, Ozdemir (2009) discussed

that promotion opportunities can affect the satisfaction level of the employees in the different

manner because of the existence of a number of promotion strategies which varies to

organization to organization. Although they are satisfied with the promotion opportunities but

have different reasons in the public and private sector.

Some of the respondents who are not satisfied with this factor might have higher qualification in

accordance to the occupied position. Seniority base promotion is another reason of the

dissatisfaction.


20

4.4 Analysis of the Working Conditions

Factors of

the job


Public

Universities

Private

Universities

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Working

Conditions

3.63 0.975 3.63 1.220 -.002 0.999


standard deviation is .975 and 1.220 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is -.002 with


concluded that there is no considerable dissimilarity between the job satisfaction of the public

and private employees as for as working conditions are concerned. This means that Null

Hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.

These results indicate that there is no main distinction between the mean of the public and

private universities. The academic staff of the public and private universities has same level of

satisfaction but pointing toward the neutral response of respondents. The main reason behind

their satisfaction is that now most of the universities are focusing on increasing their ambiance to

attract more and more students along with quality of education. Private universities have very

fascinating buildings along with all required facilities but at the same time government of

Pakistan is also spending their budget to provide good environment to their employees at public

academic institutes because it has a greater impact on the quality of work.

As determined by the Herzberg et al. (1959) working conditions are a key factor that effect job

satisfaction level. Job satisfaction can be increased by improving the working environment (Onu

et al, 2005). Female staff found to be more satisfied with the working conditions than the male

staff at the university level (Alam et al., 2005; Santhepparaj & Alam, 2005).

4.5 Analysis of the Job Security

Factors of the

job satisfaction Types of institutes z Sig. (2 tailed)

Public

Universities

Private

Universities

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Job Security 3.96 0.853 3.23 1.366 3.435 0.001


21


standard deviation is 0.853 and 1.366 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is 3.435

with p-value 0.001. As the p-value i.e. 0.001 is less than the level of significance 0.05, it is

concluded that there is a significant distinction between the job satisfaction of the public and

private employees as for as job security is concerned. Thus the Null Hypothesis has been rejected

and alternate hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.

The above results indicates that the academic staff of the public universities are more satisfied

with their job security in comparison of academic staff of the private university because once

they joined the university if they are permanent then it is their own choice remain in the

university or to leave it. But the employees of the private university feel insecure in this matter.

Security of service is a feature that has a considerable affiliation with the job satisfaction.

Siddique et al (2002). Permanent employees are more pleased with their jobs in comparison to

the employees who are on contract.

One of the major reason of their satisfaction is that they have a masters degree and working at

the position of a lecturer which is a pleasing factor for them because they feel secure by working

in a public institute. The academic staff of the private institutes is dissatisfied because no job

security has been offered to them at the time of appointment.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

It is recommended that such recruitment and selection process of faculty members must be

adopted in universities through which teachers who have interest must be given job not the ones

who just do teaching because of unemployment or any other reason. Psychological tests must be

conducted through which real interest of potential applicants must be accessed.

It is suggested that teachers compensation packages must be revised according to their work

performance and level of expertise and qualification. This factor is highly essential for

motivating staff to perform in their fullest and to meet their job satisfaction level.

It is suggested that teachers must be provided with equivalent chances of career movements that

can be horizontal or hierarchical depending upon their desires and level of efforts in achieving

these. Unfair promotions or non transparent and illegal promotions can depreciate level of

performance and can cause dissatisfaction among teachers.

It is suggested that proper facilities must be provided in universities as well build infrastructure,

latest technology for teaching, and other resources so that teaching can be made more easy and

effective and teachers feel motivated in delivering quality education.

It is suggested that job security must be allotted to the talented employees of organization not

everyone. Most of the employees must be kept on contract of few years and in this way

performance of employees must be monitored.


22

References

1. Alam, S. S., Talha, M., Sivanand, C. N., & Ahsan, N. (2005). Job Satisfaction of

University Woman Teachers in Bangladesh. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 88 - 91.

2. Baloch, Q.B., (2009) Effects of Job Satisfaction On Employees Motivation & Turn over

Intentions. Journal of Managerial Sciences Volume II, Number I.

3. Bayram, N., Gursakal, S., Bilgel, N. (2010). Burnout, Vigor and Job Satisfaction among

Academic Staff. European Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 17, No. 1.

4. Briggs, L. D. & Richardson, W. D. (1992). Causes and effects of low morale among

Secondary teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19(2). Retrieved September 11, 2002,

from EBSCO Host research Database.

5. DeVaney, S.A.,Chen, Z.S. (2003). Job Satisfaction of recent graduates in Financial

services. US Department of Labour. Bureau of Labour Statistics, Compensation and Working

Conditions Online

6. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Drankoski, R. D. (1995). The motivation to work. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

7. Hunjra, A. I., Chani, M. I., Aslam, S., Azam, M., & Kashif-Ur-Rehman. (2010). Factors

effecting job satisfaction of employees in Pakistani banking sector. African Journal of Business

Management Vol. 4(10), pp. 2157-2163, 18 August, 2010

http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm

8. Knowles, M.C., Knowles, A.D. (1978) Factors affecting Job satisfaction of

supervisors. J. of Industrial Relations, IRSA, Sage Publications. 20(2): 138-145.

9. Kosteas, V. D. (n.d.). Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Cleveland State University

2121 Euclid Avenue, RT 1707 Cleveland, OH 44115-2214

10. Lacy,F . J &. Sheehan, B .A (1997) _ Job satisfaction among academic staff: An

international perspective. Higher Education 34: 305322, 1997. 305 1997 Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

11. Lawler, E. E., III (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Brooks/ Cool Publishing

Company: Monterrey, CA.

12. Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.

13. Noordin, F & Josuff, K (2009) Levels of job satisfaction amongst Malaysian academic

staff. Asian social science, Vol. 5, No.5.

14. Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., and Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures

commitment, satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity Management Review, 14, 157-168.

15. Onu, M.O., Madukwe, M.C., Agwu, A.E. (2005). Factors affecting Job Satisfaction of

front-line extension workers in Engunu State agricultural development program. Nigeria,

Agro-Sci. 4: 19-22

16. Ozdemir, S., (2009). Factors influencing job satisfaction in Azerbaijan companies.

Journal of Qafqaz University

17. Robbins P. Stephen (2003) Organizational Behavior. 10th edition, Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

18. Salmond, S.W. (2006). Factors affecting Job Stress, Job Strain and Job Satisfaction

among acute care nurses. Eastern Nursing Research Society (ENRS) 18th Annual Scientific

Sessions. New momentum for nursing research. Multidisciplinary Alliances. 3: 20-22.

19. Santhepparaj, A.S, and Alam, S.S., (2005). Job satisfaction among academic staff in

private universities in Malaysia .Journal of social sciences 1 (2):72-76.

http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm


23

20. Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M. and Fatima, U. (2011). Impact Of Academic

Leadership On Facultys Motivation And Organizationaleffectiveness In Higher Education

System. International Journal Of Academic Research. Vol. 3. No. 3.

21. Siddique, A., Malik, N. H., and Abbass, N., (2002). Determining Teachers Level of Job

Satisfaction in Faisalabad City. International journal of agriculture & biology 1560

8530/2002/043372374

22. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969). Measurement of Satisfaction in

Work and Retirement. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

23. Spector, P. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and

Consequences. Sage Publications, London. Job satisfaction and employee performance 375

24. Sur, H., Mumcu, G., Soylemez, D., Atli, Y., Idrim, C. (2004). Factors affecting Dental

Job satisfaction, Evaluation and the Health Prof. The Haworth Press. 27: 152-164.

25. Tutuncu, O., Kozak, M. (2006). An investigation of factors affecting job satisfaction.

Int. J of Hospitality and Tourism Admin. DOI: 1-19.

26. Wiedmer, S.M. (1998). An examination of factors affecting employee satisfaction.

Department of Psychology, Missouri Western University Publications, USA.

analyzing job satisfaction level of the academic staff

Documents