Job satisfaction

Demographic Impacts on Job-Satisfaction of the Academicians in Universities

Abstract

Job satisfaction of academicians is well documented across the literature where certain leading factors of satisfaction have been researched over and over indicating that work, pay, supervision, promotion, co workers an environment collectively determines the total satisfaction of a worker/officer. However, literature also offers the evidence that employees express varying attitudes about these factors of satisfaction due to their demographic diversities. This study is a survey of academicians in the public and private universities of NWFP Pakistan, with a view to pinpointing the demographic dimensions and their interventions into the job satisfaction of the academicians. Therefore, researchers are recording the demographic impacts on the job-satisfaction of the employees. Different surveys are coming up with a variety of results where some demographics are emerging as having significant implications while other attributes have no or little impacts on the responses. Given that, real understanding about the job satisfaction of employees, like academicians, is incomplete unless the demographic differences are identified, measured and accommodated in the decision making process. To test the hypothesis of this study regarding demographic impacts, t-tests and ANOVA applications were executed. The findings of the study reveals that Designation (DSG), university sector (PRP) and Gender (GND) out of eight demographic attributes have been recorded significant in their impacts on the respondent attitudes towards factors of job satisfaction.(see Table-5.1).

1. Introduction

Job-satisfaction is one of the top issues for management and organization researchers (Locke & Latham, 2000:249). This is an attitude which shows the level of being happy or unhappy with the workplace, work and organization. Similarly, satisfied workers have positive perceptions and attitudes towards their organizations (Marion, 2001; Dessler, 2005). Research shows that happy employees are productive while unhappy are not therefore, success of the organization depends on the satisfaction of their workforce (Lise & Judge, 2004). Therefore, organizations want their employees to be satisfied to become productive, efficient committed (Shamil & Jalees, 2004). Job satisfaction can also be viewed as the degree of an employee's affective orientation toward the work role occupied in the organization (Tsigilis et al., 2006). Therefore, job satisfaction is a very important attribute that is frequently measured by all types of organizations (Wikipedia, 2009).

Researchers have unearthed a set of factors or variables, which stand responsible for the overall satisfaction of employees in any organization, for example, pay, work, supervision, promotion, work environment, and coworkers (see for example, Williams & Sandler 1995; Stacey, 1998; Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001; DeVane & Sandy, 2003; Lise & Judge, 2004). Other investigators have used different terminologies to express factors for job-satisfaction, such as, personal and organizational factors (Saiyadain, 1998), personal and job characteristics (Sokoya, 2000), mentally challenging work, equitable rewards, supportive working conditions, supportive colleagues, good personality and supportive workers (Naval & Srivastava, 2002), and “demographic relationships” between satisfaction and faculty members (Shamil & Jalees, 2004; Tsigilis et al., 2006).

Thus, a leading stream of research in job-satisfaction is about the demographic impacts on the employees' attitude because these personal and contextual variables have been found significant in affecting the performance level of any workforce (Sokoya, 2000). There are several demographic variations among the workforce, which influence the degrees of satisfaction from pay, work, subversion etc. For example, gender, age, education, designation, numbers of years in organization and marital status of the emplyees have widely beeb found critical in the determining the satisfaction (Stacey, 1998; Marion, 2001; Shamail & Jalees, 2004; Chughtai & Zafar, 2006; Eker et al., 2007; Asadi et al., 2008 ). This study explores the problem of job satisfaction among the academicians in the public and private sector universities of NWFP, Pakistan to empirically record the attitudes of respondents alongside their respective personal attributes and then statistically test of hypotheses about the demographic impacts. Tests of significance have been used to compute the significance of impacts.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

An array of research is going on to explore the job-satisfaction of the workers because it is directly related with the contributions of a worker to the organization. Satisfied worker is committed and involved in his/her work while dissatisfied employees have been found involved in absenteeism and turnover (Locke and Latham, 2000:249-250). Job satisfaction relates to an individual's perceptions and evaluations of the job, which are affected by the needs, circumstances, and expectations. It is an emotional response to a job situation that is determined by how well outcomes meet or exceed expectations, for example, if employees are treated unfairly, work hard but rewarded less, they are likely to develop negative attitudes toward their job, officers and colleagues. However, if they are treated fairly and paid well, they are expected to have positive attitudes for the organization (Luthans, 2005;212). Thus, “job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job (Wikipedia, 2009).”

The researchers have pinpointed a set of predictors for the job-satisfaction, which include pay, work, promotion, supervision, environment, and co-workers (Sokoya, 2000). Irrespective of the theoretical approach to the study of job satisfaction, most of the research identifies at least two categories of predictor variables: environmental factors and personal characteristics (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001; Luthans, 2005:212). While for the measurement of outputs or results of job-satisfaction and dissatisfaction, employees' involvement and commitment (positive-outcomes) and absenteeism and turnover (negative results) are used as measures because job satisfaction represents several related attitudes (Chughtai & Zafar, 2006).

2.2. Factors of Job-Satisfaction

The literature survey reveals that the factors, which contribute to the job satisfaction of any worker or officer, are: pay, work, environment, co-workers (Robbins, 1998:152). Likewise, adequate equipment, required resources, training opportunities and an equitable workload – all affect employee's job satisfaction (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001). Others researchers measure job-satisfaction on the basis of “attitude to the job, relations with fellow workers, supervision, company policy and support, pay, promotion and advancement, and customers (DeVane & Sandy, 2003).” Luthans (2005:212) suggests that work, pay, promotion, supervision and coworkers as the main determinants of job-satisfaction.

Furthermore, the job-dimensions like, work, pay, supervision, promotion coworkers and the demographic features of the employees and organization determine the job satisfaction (Shamil & Jalees, 2004; Tsigilis et al., 2006). Similarly, other determinants are age, gender, education level, compensation and benefits, work, advancement opportunities, meaningful working conditions, management policy, gaining repect, the size of organization and achievements through talents (Saiyadain, 1998; Sokoya, 2000; Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001; Marion, 2001; DeVane & Sandy, 2003; Tella et al., 2007). Now we shall give a brief account of these factors of satisfaction and demographic implications.

Pay: Pay is the first and very primary factor of satisfaction for almost every type of employee in public, private, small, medium and large organization. The use of financial inducements has featured prominently on both the agendas of human resource researchers and practitioners (Koh & Neo, 2000). “Fair pay system is linked with job satisfaction (Naval & Srivastava, 2002).” The pay refers to “the amount of financial remuneration that is received and the degree to which this is viewed as equitable vis-à-vis that of others in the organization (Luthans, 2005:212).”

Work/Job: Employees tend to prefer jobs that give them opportunities to use their skills and abilities and offer a variety of tasks, freedom, and feedback on how well they are doing. Jobs that have too little challenge create boredom, but too much challenge create frustration and a feeling of failure. Under conditions of moderate challenge most people will experience pleasure and satisfaction (Naval & Srivastava, 2002). Work plays a central role in people life, according to employee's context it should be attractive and contribute to job satisfaction of employees (Tsigilis et al., 2006).

Supervision: This is the function of leading, coordinating and directing the work of others to accomplish designated objectives. A supervisor guides their subordinates so that they produce the desired quantity and quality of work within the desired time. In short, a supervisor seeks to have the group accomplish the required work and likewise seeks to promote need satisfaction and high morale among the employees (Beach, 1998:341). The group having democratic style is more satisfied than group of autocratic leadership (Naval & Srivastava, 2002).

Promotion: Research tells that limited opportunities for promotion are common in public sector organization thereby preventing the qualified employees to remaining in the job (David & Wesson, 2001). Fair promotion policies and practices provide opportunities for personal growth, more responsibilities and increased social status. Fair promotion is the recognition of employee, which increases satisfaction and enhances organizational commitment (Naval & Srivastava, 2002). The research in public and private sectors shows that “job satisfaction of municipal government employees is significantly influenced” by their perceptions of the promotional opportunities, which is the second most powerful determinant of employee job satisfaction (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001; Shamil & Jalees, 2004; Robbins & Coulter, 2005; Tsigilis et al., 2006).

Work-Environment: Organizational climate is a powerful determinant of both productivity and employee satisfaction. Its influence is so strong that it can outweigh the impact of the quality of frontline leadership (Beach, 1998:361). Researchers found that job satisfaction of municipal employees depends more on environmental factors rather than personal attributes thereby requiring “a good employee-environment fit (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001).” In a research, it was unearthed that poor working conditions effect job satisfaction negatively (Tsigilis et al., 2006).

Co-Workers: Organizations are social institutions where every worker has to work with a group of workers and officers. Naturally, if coworkers have good social and working relations, their performance and job satisfaction both are positively affected. Thus, organization's social environment can affect employee job satisfaction, especially coworker interaction (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001). Some say that increase in feeling of belongingness and coordination among employees and open communication can increase job satisfaction (Naval & Srivastava, 2002). Workers' satisfactions are closely related to their relationships with coworkers and supervisors (Hiroyuki et al., 2007).

2.3. Consequences of Job-Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been the focus of many researchers measuring employee commitment level, organizational turnover and absenteeism (Shamil & Jalees, 2004). Job satisfaction at work may influence various aspects of work such as efficiency, productivity, absenteeism, turnovers rates, employees' intention to quit, and finally employees' well-being (Tsigilis et al., (2006). Job satisfaction of teachers has long been a focus of attention for educational researchers. Arguably, this is because of links between job satisfaction and organizational behavior issues such as commitment, absenteeism, turnover, efficiency and productivity (De Nobile & McCormick, 2006).

Involvement & Commitment: Job-involvement and commitment are the positive consequences are emerging attitudes, which naturally increases the organizational productivity. Job-involvement is the physical, emotional and mental involvement of people in an activity, for example, decision making is a kind of ‘mental involvement' involvement in decision making (Beach, 1998:311). People with a high level of job involvement strongly identify with and care about the work they do (Robbins, 1998:142). Employees with a high level of job involvement strongly identify with and really care about the kind of work they do (Robbins & Coulter, 2005:375; Chughtai & Zafar, 2006).

Similarly, organizational commitment refers to that attitude of the worker in which he/she identifies himself/herself with a particular organization, its objectives and aspires to remain its member (Robbins, 1998:142). Furthermore, those who are dissatisfied from their job are more likely to become less committed or decide to quit the job altogether (Shamil & Jalees, 2004). Research suggests that organizational commitment helps in lowering down the levels of both absenteeism and turnover and, in fact, it is a better indicator of turnover then job satisfaction (Robbins & Coulter, 2005:375).

Absenteeism & Turnover: If workers are not happy with their job dimensions, they are likely to develop negative attitudes about the work, officers and coworkers. Absenteeism and turnover are main problems, which emerge out of employee-dissatisfaction at the workplace (Decenzo & Robbins, 1998; 344). Absenteeism can reduce organizational effectiveness and efficiency by increasing labor costs (Marion, 2001) because job satisfaction is correlated with market behaviors like productivity, turnover, and absenteeism (Gazioðlu & Tansel, 2002). Most researchers are of the view that higher the rate of absenteeism, the lower is the job satisfaction (Verma, 2004:194). Research shows that satisfied employees have lower level of absenteeism than do dissatisfied employees while it certainly makes sense that dissatisfied employees are more likely to miss work (Robbins & Coulter, 2005:375).

Survey over survey is informing that job-dissatisfaction can de-motivate the workers and they can get in line to quit the organization for some other better job and workplace. Researchers are exploring the ways to create work situations which attract the workers and force them to stay with the organization (Marion, 2001). Thus, job dissatisfaction is a reason for burnouts and ultimately, turnover (Shamil & Jalees, 2004). Similarly, satisfied workers develop weaker intentions to leave thereby reducing the chances of turnover (Robbins & Coulter, 2005:375).

2.4. Demographic Impacts

Researchers have suggested as list of demographic dimensions used for hypotheses development, for example, gender, marital status, age, qualification, annual income and experience (Saiyadain, 1998; Naval & Srivastava, 2002). The catalyst role of employee's personal attributes and demographic characteristics is recorded by almost every researcher on job satisfaction. Almost all the researchers of job satisfaction have identified ‘demographics' as the catalysts, which modify employee's attitude towards his/her work, pay, supervision, promotion and work environment (DeVane & Sandy, 2003). Demographics also affect workers attitudes in terms of productivity, involvement and commitment on one hand and on the other hand the degrees of absenteeism and turnover or intention to leave (Shamil & Jalees, 2004). Another group of researchers have recorded that age, gender, experience, department, foreign qualification or exposure to different culture, and technological challenges always influence the overall satisfaction of the employees (Tella et al., 2007; Asadi, et al., 2008).

Table-2.1: Demographic Variables

Variable

Attributes

Code

1

Designation

Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor

DSG

2

Qualification

Masters, MPhil/MS, PhD

QUA

3

Length of Service

1-5, 6-10, 11-Above

LOS

4

Age

20-30, 31-40, 41-Above

AGE

5

Department/ Subject

Sciences and Non-Sciences

DPT

6

Marital Status

Married, Un-Married

MS

7

Sector

Public, Private

PPR

8

Gender

Male, Female

GND

Table-2.2: List of the Research Variables

Variable

Questions

Code

1

Pay

5

PAY

2

Work

10

WRK

3

Supervision

6

SUP

4

Promotion

5

PRO

5

Environment

12

ENV

6

Co Workers

5

CW

7

Involvement and Commitment

6

IC

8

Absenteeism and Turnover

6

AT

Total

55

5.5. Theoretical Framework

2.6. List of the Hypotheses

1. Seniors are more satisfied than the junior academicians. [H1]

2. Higher the education, greater will be the job satisfaction. [H2]

3. Greater the experience, higher will be the job satisfaction. [H3]

4. Aged academicians are more satisfied than the younger teachers. [H4]

5. Science teachers are more satisfied than the teachers in social sciences. [H5]

6. Non-married employees are less satisfied than the married. [H6]

7. Public sector academicians are less satisfied than those in private sector. [H7]

8. Males are more satisfied than female teachers. [H8]

3. Research Method

Given that job satisfaction is a global issue therefore several methods are being applied by the researchers to investigate the problem from different dimensions. Several surveys are available about different organizations and different aspects of job satisfaction including demographic impacts, for example, ‘comparative analysis of job satisfaction among public and private professionals (David & Wesson, 2001)', ‘a comparison of public and private university academicians in Turkey (Bas & Ardic, 2002)', ‘factors of job satisfaction among faculty (Castillo & Cano, 2004)', ‘job satisfaction among academic staff in private universities in Malaysia (Santhapparaj & Alam, 2005)' ‘identifying the job-satisfaction of Tutors in an Open University (Beyth-Marom et al., 2006)', ‘job satisfaction & burnout among Greek educators: A comparison between public and private sector employees (Tsigilis et al., 2006)' and ‘antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani University teachers (Chughtai & Zafar, 2006).'

Survey strategy has been applied in this project through a structured questionnaire distributed among 260 teachers in the Universities of NWFP, Pakistan. 218 completed survey instruments were returned giving 83.84% of return rate. The questionnaire included questions about 8-demographic (Department, Designation, Qualifications, Gender, Age, Length of Service, Marital Status, and Sector of the University) and 8-research variables (pay, work, supervision, promotion, environment, co-workers – plus involvement & commitment and absenteeism and turnover (see Tables-2.1 and 2.2 for details). 7-point Likert scale was used where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = mildly agree, 4 = neutral, 5 = mildly disagree, 6 = disagree and 7 = strongly disagree. All the primary data was inserted into SPSS 12.0 to create a database for analysis.

The Reliability-analysis gave Cronbach' Alpha of 0.904 for 55 items. Descriptive tables were generated about the respondents and research variables. For testing of the hypotheses regarding demographic impacts, t-tests and ANOVA applications were executed.

4. Findings of the Study

4.1. Descriptive Results

Table-4.1: Cross-tabulation across Designation, Gender and Sector

Sector

Gender

Designation

Total

Lecturer

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor

Public

Male

72

34

16

122

Female

36

11

0

47

Sub-Total

108

45

16

169

Private

Male

9

8

5

22

Female

17

10

0

27

Sub-Total

26

18

5

49

Grand Total

218

Table-4.2: Cross-tabulation across Age, Qualifications and Department

Department

Age

Qualifications

Total

Masters

MPhil/MS

PhD

Sciences

20 to 30

50

16

4

70

31 to 40

10

18

6

34

41 and Above

1

6

11

18

Total

61

40

21

122

Non-Sciences

20 to 30

52

0

0

52

31 to 40

29

2

1

32

41 and Above

5

0

7

12

Total

86

2

8

96

Table-4.2: Descriptive Statistics of the Research Variables (n=218)

Variables

Min

Max

Mean

Std. Deviation

1

Pay

1.33

5.83

3.9381

.86926

2

Work/Job

2.60

6.80

4.5394

.81229

3

Supervision

2.00

6.00

3.8997

.89133

4

Promotion

2.00

6.60

4.3294

.94199

5

Environment

2.73

6.73

4.6530

.85652

6

Co-Workers

2.40

7.00

4.6798

1.02416

7

Involvement & Commitment

1.50

7.00

4.2362

1.29441

8

Absenteeism & Turnover

1.83

7.00

4.9106

1.19631

4.2 Testing of the Hypotheses

Table-4.3: Impacts of DSG, QUA, AGE, & LOS (ANOVAs)

DSG

QUA

AGE

LOS

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

F

Sig.

Pay

.390

.678

.115

.892

.293

.747

1.874

.156

Work/Job

1.301

.274

1.485

.229

.844

.431

5.761

.004

Supervision

5.824

.003

6.555

.002

7.630

.001

6.717

.001

Promotion

4.187

.016

.210

.811

1.529

.219

2.000

.138

Environment

5.932

.003

.007

.993

1.008

.367

1.290

.277

Co-Workers

10.974

.000

1.838

.162

4.043

.019

3.224

.042

Involvement & Commitment

9.118

.000

4.936

.008

14.635

.000

1.675

.190

Absenteeism & Turnover

2.343

.098

.448

.639

.541

.583

1.187

.307

Table-value with df of 2&215 = 3.00 at .05 Significance Level

Table-4.4: Impacts of DPT, MS, PPR, and GND (t-Tests)

Department

Marital Status

Sector

Gender

t

p

t

p

t

p

t

p

Pay

-1.169

.244

-.601

.548

2.030

.044

2.598

.010

Work/Job

-.287

.774

1.332

.184

2.162

.032

5.978

.000

Supervision

.888

.376

3.754

.000

2.981

.003

9.204

.000

Promotion

.842

.401

1.531

.127

2.178

.030

5.421

.000

Environment

.674

.501

.531

.596

2.135

.034

3.962

.000

Co-Workers

.887

.376

2.636

.009

4.300

.000

7.414

.000

Involvement & Commitment

.229

.819

5.982

.000

8.134

.000

13.444

.000

Absenteeism & Turnover

.445

.656

1.369

.173

2.723

.007

5.051

.000

Table t-value with df of 216 = 1.96 at .05 Significance Level

5. Discussion

The researchers are recording varying attitudes of the workers in different organizations, locations and countries (See the detail in Table-5.2). Although demographics do have the impacts everywhere but there are differences of degree between the impacts. Several demographic groupings have been tested with sometimes opposing results however; almost all the studies have recorded the impacts of gender, sector, length of service and environment. Before analyzing the results of existing research about the demographic impacts, the findings of current study are summarized in Table-5.1 to have a view of the recorded impacts.

Table-5.1: Summary of Findings from the Tests of Significance

Variables

Dsg

Qua

LoS

Age

Dpt.

MS

PPR

Gdr

%age

1

Pay

X

X

X

X

X

X

.044

.010

2/8

25

2

Work

X

X

.004

X

X

X

.032

.000

3/8

38

3

Supervision

.003

.002

.001

.001

X

.000

.003

.000

7/8

88

4

Promotion

.016

X

X

X

X

X

.030

.000

3/8

38

5

Environment

.003

X

X

X

X

X

.034

.000

3/8

38

6

Co-Workers

.000

X

.042

.019

X

.009

.000

.000

6/8

75

7

Involvement & Commitment

.000

.008

X

.000

X

.000

.000

.000

6/8

75

8

Absenteeism &Turnover

X

X

X

X

X

X

.007

.000

2/8

25

5/8

2/8

3/8

3/8

0/8

3/8

8/8

8/8

%age

63

25

38

38

0

38

100

100

1. Columnar analysis reveals that three (DSG, PPR & GDR) out of Eight demographic attributes have been recorded significant in their impacts (63%, 100% & 100% respectively) on the respondents attitudes towards factors of job satisfaction.

2. While looking at the factors of job satisfaction being influenced by the demographic attributes, again three (SUP, CW & IC) have mainly been affected (88%, 75% & 75% respectively) by the demographics.

Table-5.2: Comparison of the Existing Research and Current Study

Demographics

Yes

No

Current Study

1

Designation

Marion ( 2001)

Yes

2

Qualification

Saiyadain, (1998)

Stacey, (1998)

No

3

Length of Service

Saiyadain, (1998); Sokoya (2000); Trimbles, (2006)

Tella et al., (2007)

No

4

Age

Saiyadain, (1998); Koh & Ten (1998); Sokoya (2000)

Ellickson & Logsdon, (2001); Trimbles, (2006); Hiroyuki et al., (2007)

No

5

Department/ Subject

Munyae, (2000); Sokoya (2000); Ellickson & Logsdon, (2001); David & Wesson, (2001)

Shamil & Jalees (2004)

No

6

Marital Status

Saiyadain, (1998)

No

7

Sector (Public/ Private)

Munyae, (2000); Sokoya (2000); Ellickson & Logsdon, (2001); David & Wesson, (2001); Naval & Srivastava (2002); Tsigilis et al., (2006); Shamil & Jalees (2004)

Yes

8

Gender

Williams & Sandler (1995); Stacey (1998); Koh & Ten (1998); David & Oswald (1999); David & Wesson (2001); Marion ( 2001); DeVane & Sandy (2003); Shamil & Jalees (2004); Hiroyuki et al., (2007)

Saiyadain, (1998);

David & Oswald (1999); Ellickson & Logsdon, (2001)

Yes

Table-5.2 gives a detail of the studies conducted on the measurement of demographic impacts on the job-satisfaction of the employees. As the table reveals that the current empirical study has found that ‘designation, sector and gender' are significantly related with their responses on different dimensions of job satisfaction. All the rest of demographic attributes (qualification, length of service, department/subject, and marital status) have been recorded as having no impacts on the respondents in the context of their job satisfaction. It can be seen that both sector and gender have more evidence on their impacts and same is proved by this study as well.

6. Conclusions

On the basis of preceding literature review, empirical-findings and discussion, following conclusions are reached about the issue of job-satisfaction among the academicians in the universities of NWFP, Pakistan:

Table-6.1: Decisions about the Research Hypotheses

%age of Impacts

Alternate Hypothesis

H1

Seniors are more satisfied than the junior academicians.

63

Accepted

H2

Higher the education, greater will be the job satisfaction.

25

Rejected

H3

Greater the experience, higher will be the job satisfaction.

38

Rejected

H4

Aged academicians are more satisfied than the younger teachers.

38

Rejected

H5

Science teachers are more satisfied than the teachers in social sciences.

0

Rejected

H6

Non-married employees are less satisfied than the married.

38

Rejected

H7

Public sector academicians are less satisfied than those in private sector.

100

Accepted

H8

Males are more satisfied than female teachers.

100

Accepted

1. Junior teachers are less satisfied than the seniors. H1 is substantiated showing that new comers have more expectations from their jobs than the older teachers. Therefore, it can be argued that satisfaction level is affiliated with experience but surprisingly ‘length of experience (H4)' has indicated no impact on the job satisfaction. That's why the literature (Table-5.2, row 1) has very little support for this hypothesis.

2. Another pronounced impact is from the public/private nature of the higher education institutions. There is huge evidence (Table-5.2, 7th row) about the recorded impacts of being in private or public sector universities. Powerful private institutions are said to care more about their employees whereas public sector academicians have limited resources and attractions). The same is verified by the current research.

3. A substantial number of surveys of educational institutions, particularly in developing countries, have recorded ‘gender discrimination' expressed through lesser satisfaction of females than males from most of the job satisfaction factors (Table-5.2, 8th row). This study also comes up with the same kind of evidence verifying that H8 is substantiated.

4. Qualification, experience, age, department/subject, and marital status have impacts but insignificant according to the criteria of the tests of significance. Similarly, in Table-5.2, the researchers have documented mixed results about all of these demographic attributes.

References

Asadi, A., Fadak, F., Khoshnodifar, Z., Hashemi, S. M. & Hosseininia, G. (2008) Personal Characteristics Affecting Agricultural Extension Workers' Job Satisfaction Level. Department of Agricultural Extension and education, College of Agriculture, Tehran University, Karaj, Iran

Bas, T. & Ardic, K. (2002) A comparison of job satisfaction between public and private university academicians in Turkey. METU studies in Development, 29 (1-2): 27-46.

Beach, D. (1998) Personnel: The management of people at work, 5th edition, Macmillan publishing company, New York, USA.

Beyth-Marom, R., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., Bar-Haim,A. & Godder, E. (2006) Identification, Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation among Tutors at the Open University of Israel. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,Vol 7, No 2.

Castillo, J. & Cano, J. (2004) Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 45(3 ) 2004 page no.65-74

Chughtai, A. A. & Zafar, S. (2006) Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment Among Pakistani University Teachers. Applied H.R.M. Research, 11(1):39-64.

David, B. & Wesson, T. (2001) A comparative analysis among public versus private sector professionals The Innovation Journal (The Public sector innovation journals). Ontario, Canada.

David, B. G. & Oswald, A. J. (1999) American Job satisfaction, Dartmouth College, USA and National Bureau of economic Research University of Warwick, UK. Presented in Cornell University Conference 1999. USA. UK.

De Nobile, J. J. & McCormick, J. (2006) Biographical Differences and Job Satisfaction of Catholic Primary School Staff. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, November 26-30.

Decenzo, D. A. & Robbins, S. P. (1998) Personnel/ Human Resource Management. 3rd edition Published by Asoka K. Ghosh, Prentice – Hall of India private limited New Delhi.

Dessler, G. (2005) Human Resource Management. Pearson Education Inc; India.

DeVane, S. A. & Sandy, Z. (2003) Job satisfaction of recent graduates in financial services, Chen Pirdu University may US Department of Labor, Bureau of statistics. Available at: WWW. bls.gov.

Eker, M., Anbar, A. & Dirbiyik, L. (2007) Job satisfaction of academicians in Turkey and the factors affecting. The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources. 9(4).

Ellickson, M. C. & Logsdon, K. (2001) Determinants of job satisfaction of Municipal Government employees. State and Local Government Review. Volume 33 (3) 173-184.

Gazioðlu, A. & Tansel, A. (2002) Job Satisfaction in Britain: Individual and Job Related Factors. ERC Working Papers in Economics, January, 2-15.

Hiroyuki, C., Kato, T. & Ohashi, I. (2007) Morale and Work Satisfaction in the Workplace Evidence from the Japanese Worker Representation and Participation Survey. Prepared for Presentation at the TPLS, UC-Santa Barbara.

Koh, W. L. & Ten, M. C. (1998) Work, job satisfaction and behavioral intention of par-timers in Singapure, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 6(1):35-50.

Koh, W. L. & Neo, A. (2000) An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Pay for Performance on Employee Satisfaction, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 8(2), 29-47.

Lise, S. M. & Judge, T. A. (2004) Employee Attitude and Job Satisfaction. Human Resource Management, Winter. 43(4):395-407.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2000) A theory of goal setting and task performance, Prentice Hall, Upper saddle River, N.J.

Luthans, F. (2005) Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hills International Edition.

Marion, K. (2001) Burnout and job satisfaction amongst Victorian secondary school teachers: A comparative look at contract and permanent employment. Ana Della Rocca and Marion Kostanski. Discussion Paper ATEA Conference. Teacher Education: Change of Heart, Mind and Action. 24-26 September 2001. Melbourne Australia.

Munyae, M. M. (2000) Toward an Explanation of Cross-Sector Differences in Job satisfaction and Organisational Attachment Among Agricultural Technicians in Kenya. African Sociological Review, 4,(1):55-7.

Naval, B. & Srivastava, D. (2002) Sectorial comparison factors influencing job satisfaction in Indian banking Sector. Singapore Institute of Management sciences.

Robbins, S. P. (1998) Organizational behavior. 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. (2005) Management. India-Pearson Education, Inc, Delhi.

Saiyadain, M. (1998) correlates of job satisfaction among Malaysian managers. Malaysian Institute of Management KualaLampure. Malaysia.

Santhapparaj. A. S. & Alam, S. S. (2005) Job satisfaction among academic staff in private universities in Malaysia. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2):72-76.

Shamail, T. & Jalil, s. (2004) An analysis of job satisfaction level of fuculty members of at university of sindh. Journal of Independent Studies and Research, Volume 2.

Sokoya, S. K. (2000) Personal predictors of job satisfaction for the public sector manager: Implications for Management practice and development in a developing economy. The journal of Business in Developing Nations. Vol 4. Article 1.

Stacey, W, M. (1998) An Examination of factors affecting employees satisfaction. Department of Psychology, Missouri Western State University. Missouri Western State University.

Tella , A., Ayeni, C. O. & Popoola, S. O. (2007) Work motivation, Job satisfaction and organizational commitment of library in Oyo state, Nigeria” By Library philosophy and practice.

Trimbles, D. E. (2006) Organizational Commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intention of missionaries. Journal of Psychology and Theology. The free Library 2006.

Tsigilis, N., Zachopoulou, E. & Grammatikopoulos, V. (2006) Job Satisfaction and burnout among Greek early educators: A comparison between public and private sector employees. Educational Research and Review, 1(8):256-261.

Verma, A. P. (2004) Human Resource Management. Millennnium Edition. S. K. Kataria & Sons Publishers & Distributors 6, Guru Nanak Market, Nai Sarak Delhi.

Wikipedia (2009) Job satisfaction. [Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ job_satisfaction/ (accessed on February 12, 2009)].

Williams, S. & Sandler, R. L., (1995) Work Values and Attitudes: Protestant and Confucian Ethics as Predictors of Satisfaction and Commitment, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 3(1), 1-13. [Available at: http://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/1995/issue 1/index.html. Accessed on October, 14 2007].

[*] Prof. Dr, Khair-uz-zaman, Chairman Economics Deptt., Gomal University, D.I. Khan

[**] Assistant Prof. Allah Nawaz (Ph.D scholar) Deptt., of Public Administration Gomal University, D.I. Khan.

[***] Saif-ud-Din (Ph.D scholar), Lecturer Management Sciences, Qurtuba University D.I. Khan.

Request the removal of this essay...

Struggling?

A custom
essay
can
help...







Need help with your essay?