proposal for phd… just to share
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2005Job Satisfaction And Dissatisfaction In Higher Education: A Comparison Between Academicians In Public Universities And Private Universities And Colleges In Malaysia
By: Khairunneezam Mohd Noor
1.0 Introduction
Consequently, job satisfaction is perhaps one of the single most extensively researched topics in the field of organizational psychology. Locke (1976) estimated that, as of 1976, about 3,350 articles or dissertations had been written on the topic. According to Oshagbemi (1999), this estimate would probably be doubled if a count of relevant articles and dissertations were made today.
While several studies have explored whether various characteristics of workers (such as their age, gender, rank, length of service, etc.) have any relevance to their level of job satisfaction, very few investigations have focused on university academicians in similar work environments (Oshagbemi, 1996). In addition, while there are a few research studies involving university teachers as subjects, very few of these were job satisfaction studies (Khairunneezam, 2003).
In Malaysia particularly, the growth and development of higher learning institutions were very rapid and sometimes unpredictable. These changes include the growth in mature student entry, the expansion of courses in various fields especially science and technology, the implementation of meritocracy concept in universities’ students enrollment, the reduction of student grants, and the likelihood that students will personally have to study without direct teaching from their educator, but via internet and computers. Some of these changes have arisen from pressures of demand, the cultural shift in the way in which higher education is viewed, financial pressures, structural and managerial diversity, and diversity of university missions or emphases, among other things (Testa, 1999).
These changes affect the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of university academicians, despite their responsibilities divided into variety of tasks out of the range of teaching and learning process only.
2.0 Problem Statement
Many researches have been conducted on the subject of job satisfaction. Research
findings suggest that job satisfaction is not a static state but is subject to influence
and modification from forces within and outside an individual, that is his or her own
personal characteristics and the immediate working environment (Oshagbemi, 1999).
As an academician who works either in public or private higher education institution,
changes (i.e. regulations and obligations, workloads, age, responsibilities and
accountabilities, etc.) that occur everyday in their academic life always giving them
either ‘challenges’ or in another hand maybe can be a heavy ‘pressure’. Hence, we
need to know whether our nation’s public and private universities and colleges’
academicians really enjoy their job or they feel that this kind of career lead to a
hectic kind of life.
3.0 Purpose Of Study
The aim of this paper is to examine and analyze factors which contribute to
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among academicians in higher education and to
make a comparison of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction level between the
academicians in public universities and private universities and colleges in Malaysia.
This paper also try to construct a general model that reflect the current job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction phenomena among the academician in higher
education institutions of Malaysia.
4.0 Research Objectives
4.1 To analyze factors which contribute to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
among the academician in public universities
4.2 To analyze the level of job satisfaction among the academician in public
universities
4.3 To explore the extent to which certain personal characteristics (i.e. gender,
age, marital status, job rank, working experience, teaching hours per week,
research done, etc.) predict public universities academician job satisfaction.
4.4 To analyze factors which contribute to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
among the academician in private universities and colleges
4.4 To analyze the level of job satisfaction among the academician in private
universities and colleges
4.5 To explore the extent to which certain personal characteristics (i.e. gender,
age, marital status, job rank, working experience, teaching hours per week,
research done, etc.) predict private universities and colleges academician job
satisfaction.
4.7 To construct a model that constitute job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of
the academician in higher education of Malaysia
5.0 Significant Of Research
This study is important as it could provide a better understanding of the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction constitution particularly among academician of higher education institutions in Malaysia. Findings of this study will give a holistic picture of job satisfaction phenomena and the differences of its level between public and private higher education institutions’ academician. Furthermore, it will become a compilation of study on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction , which can be developed as a mutual guideline and a module to manage factors that contribute to the appearance of job satisfaction in an education institution. Thus, it helps the management and the academician to plan their strategies and approaches that need to be considered to generate an optimum job satisfaction level in every aspects related to the academician.
6.0 Limitation Of Study
This study will be done on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among academician
in higher education institution in Malaysia. Factors that reflect and affect job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction will be discussed in depth regarding to the scope of
academician’s career and tasks. This study will involve academician in all public
universities and academician in selected private universities and colleges in
Malaysia. Thus, results from this study will be confined and generalized to these
selected higher learning institution only.
7.0 Literature Review
As a result of effort by social academics, there appears to be a high level of
agreement among them on the meaning of the construct of job satisfaction. Typically, job satisfaction is conceptualized as a general attitude toward an object,
the job (Oshagbemi, 1999). The definitions given by these authors are similar to the
one offered by Locke (1976) who defined job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or
positive emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one’s job experiences".
Locke also added that job satisfaction can be considered as a global feeling about the
job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or facets of the
jobs.
Graham and Messner (1998) have suggested that job satisfaction is a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job and job experience. In general, therefore, job satisfaction refers to an individual’s positive
emotional reactions to a particular job. It is an affective reaction to a job that results
from the person’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired or deserved.
The topic of job satisfaction is an important one because of its relevance to the physical and mental well being of employees, for example job satisfaction has relevance for human health. Work is an important aspect of people’s lives and most people spend a large part of their working lives at work. An understanding of the factors involved in job satisfaction is relevant to improving the well being of a significant number of people. While the pursuit of the improvement of satisfaction is essentially of humanitarian value, many academician stated that "trite as it may seem, satisfaction is a legitimate goal in itself" (Oshagbemi, 2000). The topic of job satisfaction is also important because of its implications for job related behaviours such as productivity, absenteeism or turnover. Therefore, apart from its humanitarian utility, it appears to make economic sense to consider whether and how job satisfaction can be improved.
There are specific studies of individual aspects or facets of job satisfaction such as satisfaction with the work itself, satisfaction with promotions, pay or supervision. This study focuses on one aspect of general job satisfaction studies, i.e. satisfaction with co-workers’ behaviour. For example, a number of studies conducted by Oshagbemi (1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001), Donohue and Heywood (2004), Lam (1995), Roger, Claw and Kash (1994), etc. Most of the facets of job satisfaction studied before were based on Spector’s facets in Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). JSS is a 36 items, a facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. The nine facets are:
1. pay,
2. promotion,
3. supervision,
4. fringe benefits,
5. contingent rewards (performance based rewards),
6. operating procedures,
7. co-workers (colleagues),
8. nature of work, and
9. communication.
Many researches had been conducted specifically about job satisfaction among academicians. Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) examined job satisfaction and motivation among teachers in Cyprus. Findings of their study indicated that Cypriot teachers chose this career because of the salary, the hours and the holidays associated with this profession. Koustelios (2001) had done a study of personal characteristic and job satisfaction of Greek teachers. Results of the study suggested that personal characteristic (such as gender, age, etc.) were significant predictors of different aspects of job satisfaction. A study of gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers held by Oshagbemi (2000) indicated that gender does not affect the job satisfaction of university teachers directly. Another study conducted by Oshagbemi (2000), indicated that about 70 per cent of the respondent (selected among university academicians) were satisfied with their co-workers’ behaviour. The results of the study also showed that female academicians are about as satisfied with their co-workers’ behaviour when compared with their male colleagues.
From a study held by Graham and Messner (1998), the findings stated that American Midwestern principals were generally satisfied with their current job, colleagues/co-workers and level of responsibility. However, they were less satisfied with their pay, opportunities for advancement, and fringe benefits. A study titled as ‘Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job’ conducted by Oshagbemi (1999) found that academics and their managers differ significantly on the levels of satisfaction which they derive from most aspects of their jobs. Sources of these differences are identified, and the general conclusion is that management position, characterized by seniority in age, rank, and length of service, affects university teachers’ level of job satisfaction positively.
8.0 Research Methodology
8.1 Introduction
To identify and classify elements of the group of factors which are of
importance to the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction of university
academicians, research methodologies proposed by Oshagbemi (1999),
Koustelios (2001), and Khairunneezam (2003) will be employed in this study.
8.2 Theoretical Framework
|
JOB SATISFACTION@ JOB DISSATISFACTION |
8.3 Hypothesis
Based on research objective: “To analyze factors which contribute to job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the academician in public universities”
H1: Teaching as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Research as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Administration and Management as a factors of job satisfaction influence
positively to the public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Present Pay as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Promotions as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Supervision as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Co-workers’ behaviour as a factors of job satisfaction influence
positively to the public university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Physical Conditions as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to
the public university academicians’ job satisfaction
Based on research objective: “To analyze factors which contribute to job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the academician in private universities”
H1: Teaching as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Research as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Administration and Management as a factors of job satisfaction influence
positively to the private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Present Pay as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Promotions as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Supervision as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to the
private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Co-workers’ behaviour as a factors of job satisfaction influence
positively to the private university academicians’ job satisfaction
H1: Physical Conditions as a factors of job satisfaction influence positively to
the private university academicians’ job satisfaction
Based on research objective: “To explore the extent to which certain personal characteristics predict public universities academicians’ job satisfaction”.
H1: Gender influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Age influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Marital status influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Job rank influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job
satisfaction
H1: Working experience influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Teaching hours per week influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Research done influence positively to the public academicians’ level of job satisfaction
Based on research objective: “To explore the extent to which certain
personal characteristics predict private universities and colleges
academicians’ job satisfaction”.
H1: Gender influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Age influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Marital status influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Job rank influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Working experience influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Teaching hours per week influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
H1: Research done influence positively to the private universities academicians’ level of job satisfaction
8.4 Population and Sampling
The population for this research will be comprised academicians from 17
public universities and selected private universities and colleges in Malaysia.
They were selected to include sample academician of higher education institutions
from all the regions of Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak).
8.5 Instruments
To measure job satisfaction this study will apply a questionnaire that will be
modified based on Job Satisfaction Survey (built by Spector, 1997), Quality of
Employment Survey (built by Quinn and Staines, 1978), Job Descriptive Index
(Built by Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969) and Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Weill, Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1967). It measures
satisfaction in eight factors or facets of a job as below:
a. teaching,
b. research (nature of job),
c. administration and management,
d. present pay,
e. promotions,
f. supervision / supervisor’s behaviour,
g. co-workers’ behaviour, and
h. physical condition / working facilities.
Respondents will be instructed to indicate the extent of their agreement with
each item on a five-point scale (accordingly with Likert Scale) ranging “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The demographic questions (that will be the
personal characteristics variables) include age, gender, marital status, job rank,
working experience (length of service in higher education), academic discipline,
and number of research done.
8.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis in this research will be based on each objective developed. The
statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) will be used to analyze the data.
Descriptive statistics will be computed to examine level of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction of academicians. Multiple regression analysis will be performed
between the level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction of a job as university
academician (as the dependent variable) and with several independent variables
including age, gender, marital status, job rank, working experience, academic
discipline, and no of research done. Then the differences of findings appear
between respondents of public and private universities will be compared
numerically to see either one group of academician has a better job satisfaction
level then the other one.
9.0 Bibliography
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (2001). “How People Feel About Their Jobs
and How It Affects Their Performance”. New York: Lexington Books.
Donohue, S.M. and Hewywood, J.S. (2004). “Job Satisfaction and Gender : an Expanded
Spesification From the NLSY”. International Journal of Manpower. Vol 25. No
2. p 211-238.
Graham, M.W. and Messner, P.E. (1998). “Principals and Job Satisfaction”. International
Journal of Educational Management. Vol. 12. No 5. p 196-202.
Hickson, L. and Oshagbemi, T. (1999). “The Effect of Age on the Satisfaction of
Academics with Teaching and Research”. International Journal of Sosial
Economics. Vol 26. No. 4. p 537-544.
Khairunneezam Mohd Noor (2003). “Pelaksanaan Sistem Kualiti MS ISO 9002 Dalam
Proses Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran dan Kepuasan Kerja di Kalangan Guru-
guru SMK Gemereh Segamat”. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis.
Koustelios, A.D. (2001). “Personal Characteristics and Job Satisfaction of Greek
Teachers”. The International Journal Of Educational Management. Vol 15. No 7.
p 354-358.
Lam, S.K. (1995). “Quality Management and Job Satisfaction : an empirical study”.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. Vol. 12. No. 4. p
72-78.
Likert, L.R. (1967). “The Human Organization”. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A. (1976). “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction”. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). “Gender Differences in The Job Satisfaction of University
Teachers”. Woman In Management Review. Vol 15. p. 331-343.
Oshagbemi, T. (2001). “How Satisfied are Academics with the Behaviour / Supervision
of their Line Managers?”. The International Journal of Educational Management.
Vol. 15. No 6. p 283-291.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). “Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Higher Education”.
Education and Training. Vol. 39. No 9. p 354-359.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). “How Satisfied are Academics with Their Primary Tasks of
Teaching, Research and Administration and Management?”. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 1. No 2. p 124-136.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999). “Academics and Their Managers: A Comparative Study in Job
Satisfaction”. Personnel Review. Vol. 28. No 1/2. P 108-123.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). “ Satisfaction with Co-workers Behaviour”. Journal of Employee
Relations. Vol. 22. No 1. p 88-106.
Rogers, J.D., Claw, K.E., and Kash, T.J. (1994), “Increasing Job Satisfaction of Service
Personnel”. Journal of Services Marketing. Vol. 8. No.1. p 14-26.
Spector, P.E. (1997). “Job Satisfaction: application, assessment, causes and
consequences”. Thousand Oak: SAGE Publications.
Testa, M.R. (1999). “Satisfaction with Organizational Vision, Job Satisfaction and
Service Efforts : an empirical investigation”. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal. Vol. 20. No 3. p 154-161.
Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. (1998). “Motivation and Job Satisfaction”. Management
Decision. Vol. 36. No 4. p 226-231.
Woods, A.M. and Weasmer, J. (2002). “Maintaining Job Satisfaction : Engaging
Professionals as active participants”. Indiana: Heldref Publications.
Zembylas, M. and Papanastasiou, E. (2004). “Job Satisfaction Among School Teachers In
Cyprus”. Journal Of Educational Administration. Vol. 42. no. 3. p 357-274.
