COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JOB SATISFACTION OF PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITY TEACHERS IN
KHYBER PAKHTUN KHWA PAKISTAN
by
RUKHSANA AZIZ
(093-NUN-0390)
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Education
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES,NORTHERN UNIVERSITY,
NOWSHERA (PAKISTAN) 2013
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the material presented in my thesis, titled, “Comparative Study
of Job Satisfaction of Public and Private University Teachers in KPK Pakistan”.
Completed under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabsaaum, is my own work and
nothing is plagiarized.
_________________________
(Rukhsana Aziz)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that that the contents and format of the thesis submitted by Rukhsana Aziz have been found satisfactory and the work is original to the best of my knowledge. I recommend it to be processed for evaluation by External Examiners for the award of the degree.
____________________________
(Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabsaaum)
iii
APPROVAL SHEET
It is certified that the contents and format of the thesis titled “Comparative Study of
Job Satisfaction of Public and Private University Teachers in KPK, Pakistan ”,
submitted by Rukhsana Aziz have been found satisfactory for the requirements of the
degree, hence approved for the award of Ph. D. degree in Education.
Supervisor: ____________________________
(Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum)
Member: ______________________________
(Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq)
Member: ______________________________
(Dr. Muhammad Naeemullah)
External Examiner: ______________________
Date: _________
Dean Director
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Board of Advanced Studies and Research
iv
Dedication
To my great parents whos constant support &
encouragement always provided me a foundation
for achieving my objectives.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements xi
Abstract xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 3
1.3 ASSUPTIONS 3
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4
1.5 METHOD AND PROCEDURE 5
1.5.1 Population 5
1.5.2 Sample 6
1.5.3 Research Instrument 6
1.5.4 Data Collection 6
1.5.5 Analysis of Data 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF JOB SATISFACTION 7
2.1.1 Affect Theory 11
2.1.2 Dispositional Theory 12
2.1.3 Equity Theory 12
2.1.4 Discrepancy Theory 13
2.1.5 Two-Factor Theory (motivator-hygiene theory) 14
2.2 JOB SATISFACTORY THEORY 16
2.3 TEACHERS’ JOB SATISFACTION 17
2.4 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR 25
1.4.1 The Private Sector 25
1.4.2 The Public Sector 26
2.5 FACTORS AFFECT THE JOB SATISFACTION 28
2.6 DIMENSIONS OF JOB SATISFACTION 34
2.61 Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 40
2.7 PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION 44
2.7.1 Job satisfaction Model 50
2.8 SOME RESEARCH STUDIES IN THE AREA OF JOB SATISFACTION 50
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURE 58
3.1 POPULATION 58
3.2 SAMPLE 58
3.2.1 Rationale for Seclection of Sample 60
vi
3.3 INSTRUMENT 61
3.4 DATA COLLECTION 63
3.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA 63
4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 66
4.1 DISCUSSION 108
5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115
5.1 SUMMARY 115
5.2 CONCLUSIONS 116
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY 120
ANNEXURES 171
Annexure-A 171
Annexure-B 173
Annexure-C 174
Annexure-D 180
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table # Description Page #
1 Motivator and Hygiene Factors 16
2 Infuencing factos of job satisfaction 29
3 Composition of sample universities. 59
4 Composition of sample university teachers. 60
5 Questionnaire composition of the Itmes. 61
6 Comparison between perceptions of faculty members of public and private universities on overall job satisfaction through demographic variables designation and experience.
66
7 Comparison between perceptions of faculty members of public and private universities on overall job satisfaction through demographic variables gender, age and qualifications
67
8 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet ability utilization.
68
9 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet ability utilization.
69
10 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet advancement.
70
11 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet advancement
71
12 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet company policies and practices.
72
13 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet company policies and practices.
73
14 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet social status.
74
15 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet social status.
75
viii
16 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction working condition facet.
76
17 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet working condition.
77
18 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction compensation facet.
78
19 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet compensation.
79
20 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet security.
80
21 Comparison between demographic variables of designation and experience on job satisfaction facet security.
81
22 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet recognition.
82
23 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet supervision.
83
24 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet achievement.
84
25 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet achievement.
85
26 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction activity facet.
86
27 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet Activity.
87
28 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction Authority facet.
88
ix
29 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet Authority.
89
30 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction co worker facet
90
31 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet co worker.
91
32 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction creativity facet
92
33 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet creativity.
93
34 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction responsibility facet.
94
35 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet responsibility.
95
36 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction variety facet. 96
37 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction variety facet
97
38 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction supervision technical facet.
98
39 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction supervision technical facet.
99
40 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction supervision facet.
100
41 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet supervision
101
42 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction social service facet.
102
x
43 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet social service.
103
44 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction moral values facet.
104
45 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet moral values.
105
46 Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet independence
106
47 Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job satisfaction facet independence
107
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher pays thanks to her research supervisor Prof. Dr. Rabia Tabassum,
whos scholarly advice, help and constant encouragement have contributed significantly to the
completion of this study. The researcher enjoyed working with her as I witnessed an unselfish
attitude towards the work, and every moment of our interaction has been a process of
tremendous learning experience.
The researcher would like to express her special thanks to Prof. Dr. R.A Farooq, Dean
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, for his continued support, advice and words of wisdom
and his encouragement throughout the development and writing of this thesis. He has been a
role model, great motivator and mentor for me.
The researcher extends thanks to her study respondents and Registrars of public and
private universities for their cooperation in providing data and moral support. Without their
cooperation I wouldn’t have been able to undertake and accomplish this study.
The researcher is also grateful to Dr. Rehmatullah Shah, Assistant professor in Bannu
University, for his valuable support throughout my study. His critical input, stable and calm
approach significantly served the purpose of the study.
The researcher presents her sincere thanks to her professors and staff in the
Department of Education, Northern University, and all her friends. The researcher offers her
sincerest thanks from the core of her heart to her loving parents whose heartily prayers
brought ever success in her life. The researcher could not have completed this study without
the encouragement of all of the mentioned people. The researcher is grateful to each of them.
Rukhsana Aziz
xii
ABSTRACT
Teachers are the pillars of the society, who help students to grow to shoulder the
responsibility of taking their nation ahead of others. Teachers’ satisfaction with workplace is
the heart of the study. If a teacher is satisfied with his/her job, then he/she will deliver his/her
contributions in appropriate way. The major objectives of the study were: (1) to know
difference between the views of public and private university teachers regarding their job
satisfaction; (2) to differentiate the perceptions of public and private university teachers by
academic qualification on their job satisfaction; (3) to explore difference between the
opinions of public and private university teachers by age about job satisfaction; (4) to find out
difference between the views of public and private university teachers by experience
regarding job satisfaction; and (5) to explore the difference between the perceptions of public
and private university teachers by gender about job satisfaction.
The population of the study consisted of all teachers of public and private universities
in Khyber Pakhtun Khwa. The researcher randomly selected 14 (7 public and 7 private) out
of 25 universities in Khyber Pakthunkhwa. The sample size was 420 respondents.
Questionnaire was used for data collection. Mean Independent Sample t-test was employed
for data analysis. No significant difference was found between the perceptions of public and
private universities’ teachers on majority 20 dimensions of job satisfaction. However,
significant difference was observed between the views of public and private universities’
teachers on some job satisfaction facets. It was concluded that the views of both the public
and private universities’ teachers are the same. It was recommended that Higher Education
Commission (HEC) may take various measures to remove the gap between the perceptions of
public and private universities’ teachers on some facets of job satisfaction in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Job satisfaction describes how an individual is satisfied with his or her job. The more
happier people are said to be satisfied and contended within their sphere of work. Job
satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
one’s job (Locke, 1976). Weiss (2002) describes job satisfaction is an attitude. Job design
aims to increase job satisfaction and performance. Many other factors which significantly
influence job satisfaction such as the management style and culture, employee involvement,
empowerment, autonomous work groups, pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks,
promotional opportunities, the work itself and co-workers.
Besides, there are many factors which affect job satisfaction of an employee within an
organization, which may be individual, social, cultural, organizational and environmental.
Factors related to individual are personality, education, intelligence and abilities, age, marital
status, orientation to work of an employee. Social factors affecting job satisfaction are:
relationships with colleagues, group working and norms, opportunities for interaction and
informal communication. Cultural factors include attitudes, beliefs and values. Organizational
factors include its nature, structure and size, personnel policies and procedures, employees’
relation, nature of the work, technology and working environment, supervision and style of
leadership and management. Environmental factors affecting job satisfaction of employees
are economic, social, technical and governmental influences.
Every civilized society regards teachers as the most respectful entity responsible for the
building of the nations as it is the teachers who help students to grow to shoulder the
responsibility of taking their nation ahead of others. To enable the teachers to perform their
responsibilities in a judicious and befitting manner, they need and desire to have job security,
recognition, new experience and independence. When these needs are not fulfilled, they feel
2
uncomfortable and lax. Dissatisfaction amongst workers of any organization or institution is
undesirable and dangerous but fatal and suicidal if it occurs in the teaching profession.
Preliminary research by Kuhn (1980) and Plessman (1986) demonstrated that teacher
satisfiers/dissatisfiers occur in patterns and are associated with specific personality types.
Attempts may be made either to change the conditions of dissatisfying factors or to minimize
their intensity so as to make the profession alluring and acceptable. This study attempts to
identify which facets or dimensions affect the job satisfaction of university teachers in
Pakistan; it also identifies the facets affecting the job satisfaction of a teacher and accordingly
suggests solutions for creating and maintaining their job satisfaction.
Although there are many factors which affect job satisfaction of university teachers, but
the researcher has focus on the following dimensions of job satisfaction of university teachers
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. These factors are mentioned below:
Ability utilization, Achievement, Activity, Advancement, Authority, Company policies
and practices, Compensation, Co-workers, Creativity, Independence, Moral values,
Recognition, Responsibility, Security, Social service, Social status, Supervision, Supervision-
technical, Variety and Working conditions.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Education is very important for the development of an individual as well as society. A
teacher plays a vital role in transmission of knowledge to the students which eventually
prepare them (students) for shouldering the responsibilities and development of the nations.
Being directly related to the progress and prosperity of the nations, teachers need to be
respected and an environment suitable for their job need to be provided. A dissatisfied and
disgruntled teacher would prove a liability and would not be able to deliver the requisite
services to the society at large.
3
There are various factors which affect teachers’ job satisfaction. In this study the
researcher has explored difference between the views of public and private universities’
teachers’ job satisfaction in Khyber pakhtun khwa, Pakistan. The comparison has been done
between public and private universities’ teachers on job satisfaction through six demographic
variables. These demographic variables were university nature, gender, age, work experience,
designation and academic qualification.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Following were the objectives of the study:
1. To find difference between the views of public and private university teachers
regarding their job satisfaction.
2. To differentiate the perceptions of public and private university teachers by
academic qualification on their job satisfaction.
3. To explore difference between the opinions of public and private university
teachers by age about job satisfaction.
4. Find out difference between the views of public and private university teachers by
experience regarding job satisfaction.
5. To explore the difference between the perceptions of public and private university
teachers by gender about job satisfaction.
6. To compare the perception of public and private university teachers by
designation about their job satisfaction.
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS
The study was based on the following assumptions:
4
1. There is significant difference between the views of public and private university
teachers regarding their job satisfaction.
2. There is significant difference between the views of public and private university
teachers by qualification about job satisfaction.
3. There is significant difference between the opinions of public and private
university teachers by age regarding job satisfaction.
4. There is significant difference between the perceptions of public and private
university teachers by experience about job satisfaction
5. There is significant difference between the opinions of public and private
university teachers by gender about job satisfaction.
6. There is significant difference between the perception of public and private
university teachers by designation about job satisfaction.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The importance of employees’ satisfaction with workplace is the heart of the study. If
an employee is partially satisfied with job, then there will be less or no productivity. The
companies who are at the top in world ranking have good human resource system where
every employee is happy and satisfied with the environment and remuneration package.
Workers’ decisions about whether to work or not, what kind of job to accept or stay in, and
how hard to work are all likely to depend in part upon the worker’s subjective evaluation of
their work, in other words on their job satisfaction. (Clark, 1998)
Every segment of the society plays its unique role and contributes to its development
but role and contribution of the teaching community is enormous and supreme, therefore the
researcher has opted for the study under discussion so as to highlight the factors which
5
impede or enhance the level of job satisfaction of the teachers. Efforts have been made to find
out ways and means to explore all those areas affecting adversely or otherwise job
satisfaction of the teachers belonging to both public and private sectors.
The study will be justified on following grounds:
1. The findings of the study will be a useful document for educational administrators
and policy makers to design various professional and developmental programmes
for the teachers keeping in view the modern day needs.
2. By using result of the study, highups of the universities will be able to realize
negative factors adversely affecting job performance of the teachers. The super-
ordinates will be able not only to realize negative factors but also positive facets
of job satisfaction of the teachers.
3. This study will give useful suggestions to high-ups of the universities how to
make teachers satisfied with their jobs.
4. This study will be a useful document for educational researchers exploring new
areas of research. The future researchers may explore new area of research
including relationship between the teacher job satisfaction and performance,
relationship between job satisfaction and retention, job satisfaction and relations
with heads, and job satisfaction and teachers’ commitment.
1.5 METHOD AND PROCEDURE
1.5.1 Population
The population of the study consisted of all university teachers in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
6
1.5.2 Sample
The sample of the study consisted of teachers of fourteen universities (7 public and 7
private).The researcher randomly selected 30 teachers from each university. The total size of
the sample was 420 respondents from different categories of university teachers.
1.5.3 Research Instrument
The researcher used Minnesota questionnaire for data collection. The researcher has
hired this questionnaire from Institute of Vocational Psychology, Minnesota University, USA
with proper permission(Annextur B) of the Institute authorities.
1.5.4 Data Collection
The researcher personally administered the questionnaire to the respondents and
collected data from all the respondents included in the sample.
1.5.5 Analysis of Data
Data collected through above mentioned instrument were tabulated, analyzed and
interpreted by applying t-test keeping in view the objectives of the study.
7
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
For comprehension and understanding of the problem of the study, further relevant
literature needs to be reviewed. An attempt has been made in this chapter to study related
documents available in the review of literature on various aspects of the problem and record
observations. For the sake of convenience, the materials are presented in various sections.
The detailed description of which is given below:
2.1 Description of job satisfaction
2.2 Job satisfaction theory
2.3 Teachers’ Job Satisfaction
2.4 Public and Private sector
2.5 Factors affecting the job satisfaction
2.6 Dimensions of job satisfaction: Framework of the study
2.7 Personal determinants of job satisfaction
2.8 Some research studies in the area of job satisfaction
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF JOB SATISFACTION
Job satisfaction is one of the most enduring yet elusive constructs contributed to
changes in ideas and practices of governance. Clearly, the scope, organization and managing
of the public services have changed dramatically since the 1970s,( Farnham & Horton,1996).
The introduction of new organizational forms (team working), restructuring, and
reorganizations are used in the study of industrial relations( Locke, 1976) .
8
The study of job satisfaction is treated as major research activity across the world in all
the organizations including education( Iqbal & Akhtar, 2011). The job satisfaction is a most
interesting area for many researchers to study work attitude in workers (Athesios
D.Koustelios, 2001). Job satisfaction is the level in which workers like their work and it is the
difference between what employees anticipate and what they receive. It is a general attitude
towards the job, the difference between the magnitude of rewards employees get and the
amount they believe they should receive (Rocca & Kostanki ,2001).
The job satisfaction is a positive emotional state stemming pleasure of a worker
(Crossman & Zaki, 2003). The job satisfaction has influence on a variety of aspects of work
such as capability, productivity, absenteeism, efficiency, turnovers rates, and intention to
quit. Job satisfaction can be defined as the degree of an employee’s love toward
professionals. Managers and researchers opin that success of the organization depends on the
satisfaction of their workforce (Saari & Judge, 2004). It plays a pivotal role in the
organization (Tsigilis et al,2006). Thus, job satisfaction is a major area of workers which is
measured frequently by organizations (Wikipedia, 2009).
Job satisfaction is the stage at which workers like their work and it is the critical poit
where the employees look forward to and what they receive. It is a general attitude toward the
job; the difference between the amount of rewards employees get and the amount they
believe they should receive (Rocca & Kostanki, 2001). Morale, motivation and satisfaction
concepts are used interchangeably depending closely on each other. Anyhow, there is a slight
difference; the word "Morale" indicates the combined attitude of a group of individuals
forming the department/organization, and it is a collective concept whereas motivation and
satisfaction are individual-oriented (Pattanayak, 2002). Motivation is the force and strive for
satisfying needs and goals. It is the contentment enjoyed by an employee when his/her targets
9
are achieved( Verma,2003).
De Nobile (2003) defined it as the extent to which a worker has favorable or positive
feelings about work or the working condition. (Faragher et al, 2005) added that it is the
positive emotional reaction and attitudes an individual has towards his/her job. Job
satisfaction is a phase of sense in which individual is happy with his/her job and he is
provided an opportunity to take pleasure( Izgar, 2000).
One extent of the approval refers to the sensual extent. This can be elaborated within
the individual’s senses. Another degree is about meeting up the expectations. The last extent
includes; pay package, promotional possibilities, management style and skill, co-workers.
(Luthans,1995) , (Sevimli & İşcan, 2005).(Ercan .,Y, Bülent., D, 2011). Job satisfaction
theories are divided into two groups as Comprehend theories and Process theories.
Comprehend theories focus on ‘“what” will motivate the workers’ attitudes (Tanrıverdi
,2007).
General properties of the Comprehend theories can be defined as (Günbay, 2000). Met
out completely all the necessities of life is a myth. For this reason to make a necessity
satisfied, another necessity should be partialy offerred. Necessities of an individual does not
remain constant and it chenges with the passage of time.. For this reason, requirements and
needs are often being concealed in the conscious of the individual. Requirements are seen as
groups and they are interdependent in a mutual dependence.
The second theory is process theory which spells out how people do the works in
relation to how human behaviors start, continue, and end. (Tanrıverdi,2007). The process
theory cares with how the attitudes of workers are being motivated. .It is possible too to
provide general characteristics of the Process theory as under:
10
An Individual often repeats the attitude, if the person’s expectations are met according
to his/her expectations. The worker compares his gaining to the person’s expectations met
what he/she wants as result of the attitude, his performance with the achievement of another
worker who is at the same level. As a result of this, if he/she faces an unfair state at
rewarding, he/she will work according to the required limits (Daft ,1997). The aims which
are hard to be achieved for the workers, need higher performance than the aims which are
easy to be reached with less efforts. High performance will provide the high degree of
motivation .If the positive attitudes that can alter the attitudes are determined, workers’
satisfaction can be achieved by these (Çetinkanat, 2000). Intrinsic motivation can affect the
job satisfaction (Aşan, 2001).
In most industrial countries, the public sector in the last decades has seen substantial
(Turmoil Pollit & Bouckaert, 1999).Concepts as New Public Management and Reinventing
Government have substantially contributed to these changes. Clearly, these kinds of changes
are not limited to the public sector only. Companies in the private sector have also been under
constant pressure to adapt to increasing turbulence in their environment(Hammer & Champy,
1993). Like the Weberian bureaucracy in the public sector, its counterpart in the private
sector (the traditional ‘Fordist’ organization) is under pressure.
Many popular concepts in public management (project management, performance
management) are in fact borrowed from developments that are taking place in the private
sector. Job satisfaction has been defined as a general attitude toward one’s job. It is in regard
to one’s feelings or state–of-mind regarding the nature of their work. According to (Robbins
,1997), Job satisfaction is the difference between the amount of rewards employees receive
and the amount they believe they should receive.
11
Again (Mobey & Lockey, 1970) opined that Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are
functions of the perceived relationship between what one expects and obtains from one’s job
and how much importance or value one attributes to it.
There are many theories regarding job satisfaction. According to (Wikkipedia
,2013)these theories are:
1. Affect theory
2. Dispositional theory
3. Discrepancy theory
4. Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory)
5. Job characteristics model.
2.1.1 Affect Theory
Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is considered the most famous job
satisfaction model. The main theme of this theory is that satisfaction of a worker is
determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what are available in a
job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work e.g. the degree
of autonomy in a position, moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when
expectations are/aren’t met. When a person measures a particular facet of a job, his
satisfaction has more positive impact (when expectations are met) and negative (when
expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet.
To illustrate, if employee A values autonomy in the working condition and workplace
and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be comparatively
more satisfied in a position that has a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position
with less or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also spells out that too much
12
of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values
that facet.
2.1.2 Dispositional Theory
Dispositional Theory is another well-known job satisfaction theory. It is a general
theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have inclination
toward a certain level of satisfaction, irrespective of one’s job. This approach has become a
notable explanation of job satisfaction in light as job satisfaction tends to be stable over time
and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar degree
of job satisfaction.
A significant model that questioned the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core
Self-evaluations Model, proposed by (Judge et al in, 1997). He argued that there are four
important Core Self-evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction:
which are self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model
expatiates that higher the levels of self-esteem and general self-efficacy, igher is the work
satisfaction. Whereas, internal locus of control (belief of having control over her\his own life,
as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower
levels of neuroticism leads to higher job satisfaction.
2.1.3 Equity Theory
Equity Theory narrates, how a person views fairness with regard to social relationships.
During a social exchange, a person identifies the magnitude of input gained from a
relationship as compared to the output, as well as how much efforts another person puts forth.
Equity Theory proposes that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social
groups or individuals, the person is likely to be uneasy because the ratio between the input
and the output are not equal. For example, consider an employees who is associated with the
13
same job and receive the same benefits. If one individual gets a pay increase for doing the
same or less work than the other, then the less benefited individual will become dissatisfied in
his workplace. If, on the other hand, one individual gets a handsome pay and new
responsibilities, then the feeling of inequality is reduced considerably.
Other psychologists have advocated the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral
response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Mile,
,1987), (O'Neil & Mone,1998). These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and
entitled. These three types of situations affect motivation, job satisfaction, and job
performance.
1. Benevolent-Satisfied when they are under-rewarded as compared to co-workers
2. Equity sensitive-Believe everyone should be fairly rewarded for the work done.
3. Entitled-People believe that everything they receive is their just due and they
deserve to recieve.
2.1.4 Discrepancy Theory
The concept of this theory explains the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection. An
individual, who has not achieved the assigned task, feels the sense of anxiety and regret for
poor performance, they will also feel dejection due to their inability to achieve their hopes
and aspirations. According to this theory, all individuals will learn that what are their
obligations and duties for a particular function, over a specific time period, and if they fail to
fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations
consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide.
Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the
desired goals and objectives. This theory also explains that if an individual achieves the goal
then the reward can be in the shape of praise, approval, or appreciation. These achievements
14
and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as direction to self-guide.
When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they feel dejection, disappointment, or
depression and even anxities.
2.1.5 Two-factor Theory (motivator-hygiene theory)
Frederick Herzberg’s Two-factor theory also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory,
explains satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. This theory states that satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are affected by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively.
An employee’s motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate.
Motivation is an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and
organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench). Motivating factors are those aspects of
the job that make people want to perform with pleasure, and provide people with satisfaction,
for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities and rewards etc.
These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.
Hygiene factors include aspects of the working condition such as pay package,
company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions. While Herzberg's
model has stimulated much research. Researchers have been unable to prove empirically the
model. While Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the
model may have been a methodological artifact. Furthermore, the theory does not consider
individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an equal manner to
changes in motivating/hygiene factors. Finally, the model has been criticized that it does not
specify how motivating/hygiene factors can be measured and what would be the tool of
measurement.
Herzberg et al (1959) after conducting a massive study developed ‘Two Factors
Theory’ that identifies two set of factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
15
Those are (1) Hygiene factors: salary, relation with superior and peer, quality of technical
supervision, company policy and administration, working condition and (2) Motivation
factors: Achievements, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement and possibility
of growth.
Job satisfaction is a relative term and varies from person to person having different
mindsets. However, there are certain precondition/factors if existing in an
organization/university, one can conveniently argue that the employees/teachers are satisfied,
which are high salaries , recognition, one’s own self respect, job security, basic facilities and
good and friendly working environment coupled with ample chances of upward mobility.
Fig.1 Source:(Job Satisfaction Model for retention Posted by Justin Field on April 11, 2008
cited on date 09/08/2012 talentedapps.wordpress.com/2008/.../job-satisfaction-model-for-
reten.)
16
According to Kovack (1977) with its simplest definition, job satisfaction is the
designation of how happy a worker is with his job. Job satisfaction has been the most
frequently investigated variable in organizational behavior (Spector, 1997). Job satisfaction
varies and researchers, for example (Peretomode, 1991) & (Whawo, 1993) have suggested
that the higher the prestige of the job, the greater the job satisfaction. Many workers,
however, are satisfied in even the least prestigious jobs. That is, they simply like what they
do. In any case, job satisfaction is an individual’s own feelings or state of mind.
2.2 JOB SATISFACTION THEORY
According to Herzberg’s two-Factor theory (1959) job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
are caused by two different and independent sets of factors, i.e., the motivators and the
hygiene factors which are as under:
Table 1: Motivator and Hygiene Factors
Motivator Factors Hygiene Factors
Achievement
Recognition
Work Itself
Responsibility
Promotion
Growth
Pay and Benefits
Company Policy and Administration
Relationships with co-workers
Supervision
Status
Job Security
Working Conditions
Personal life
17
In terms of Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, factors that make employees feel
good about their work, are different from factors that make them feel bad about their work.
According to Herzberg cited in (Schulz et al., 2003), employees who are satisfied at work
attribute their satisfaction to internal factors, while dissatisfied employees ascribe their
behavior to external factors. Factors that play a role in contributing to the satisfaction of
employees are called motivators, while hygiene factors contribute to job dissatisfaction.
These two factors are also called the intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) factors.
2.3 TEACHERS’ JOB SATISFACTION
Teaching is a complex , demanding as well as a Prophetic profession. To sustain
energy, interest and enthusiasm for teaching, teachers need to maintain personal commitment
to the job with which they are associated (Day, 2000). Attitude of teachers have also been
resolute to be influenced by gender (Dodeen, et al.,2003). They argued that female teachers
have more positive attitude towards teaching profession when compared with male teachers.
(Flores, 2001) explored from the newly graduated teachers that what affects their attitude
towards teaching profession. (Hussain et al ,2011) described that teaching is one of the
oldest professions.
It is true that the inclination for entrance into the teaching profession have not
always been as high as those for some other profitable professions. It is no denying the fact
that in the profession of teaching, there are some members who have not lived up to the
desirable level of conduct, standard and service. Furthermore, many persons have used
teaching as a ladder to other professions. It is always blamed that our teachers are not
performing their duties and responsibilities according to the satisfaction of their pupils,
parents and community.
Teacher’s job satisfaction is the satisfaction of teachers while teaching and
the apparent relationship between the wants and desires of a teacher (Zambylas &
18
Papanastasiou, 2004).According to (Panda & Mohanty, 2003) the teacher is the focal point of
any educational system. In fact, teachers are the strength of a nation. Teachers develop
performance and efficiency style, characteristics to their ways of relating to the world,
perceptually as well as cognitively. A person is, therefore, required to act in a way that
multiplies the use of his aptitudes ( Annierah Maulana Usop et al, 2013). Similarly, teacher’s
positive attitude towards teaching and higher aspiration level determines his positive
perception of the environments.
It is universally recognized that teacher’s instructional performance plays a
major role in students’ learning and academic achievement (Panda & Mohanty,2003).
According to (Tanya, 2007) teacher motivation is measured by both financial and non-
financial factors. Pay level and other material gains must be sufficient to meet basic human
needs. However, overall job satisfaction among teachers is also strongly determined by
higher order emotional and social needs, particularly professional self-esteem, job security,
working relationship in an organization. ( UNESCO report, 2003) points out that irregular
appointment practices, politicization, ill management, lack of transport and security are
amongst the core issues that are faced by teachers.
Motivation is another important factor which affects the performance of teachers. To
(Olajide, 2000),"it is goal-directed, and therefore cannot be outside the goals of any
organization whether public, private or non-profit". In the words of(Vanbaren ,2010), work
motivation is a process used to motivate and inspire workers to perform their jobs with
dedication.
Gupta & Jain (2003) reported that a variety of factors such as salary, job security,
physical conditions, chances of promotion, recognition and rewards etc. influence job
satisfaction. (Kumar & Patnaik, 2004) reported that job satisfaction and attitude towards work
are highly correlated and interdependent. (Kumar, Udayasuriyan & Vimala, 2008) found
19
significant differences in work motivation based on the demographic variables like age,
gender, teaching experience in the present organization, marital status and monthly income.
Dombrovskis, Guseva & Murasovs (2011) concluded that the motives of work
satisfaction and social status were found least important and occupy the lowest position in
the work motivation structure. (Kaur & Sidana, 2011) found that level of job satisfaction of
male teachers was greater than their female colleagues. (Gupta, Pasrija & Bansal, 2012)
reported that female teachers were more satisfied than their male counterparts and more
experienced teachers, teachers belonging to rural areas had better job satisfaction than their
counterparts hailing from cities and towns.
According to Maike et al (2010) “Time is such a scarce source, flexible arrangements
are a top indicator of work life equality and employee satisfaction” According to (Lisa ,2008)
“conflict between work and family was found to be a factor in many family problems such as
depression, use of alcohol and job satisfaction.” The balance between work and family have
effects on every employee differently and the ability to manage these factors depends on the
individual.
Many teachers may be confronted witht this situation and these factors could
influence their level of job satisfaction as measured in this survey (Khalid Latif et al,
2011).The relevance of job satisfaction and motivation are very crucial to the long-term
growth and development of any educational system around the world.They probably rank
alongside professional knowledge and skills, center competencies/efficiencies, educational
resources and strategies as the veritable determinants of educational success and
performance. Professional knowledge, skills and center competencies occur when one feels
effective and competent in one’s behavior.
In other words, professional knowledge, skills and competencies can be seen
when one is accepting and mastering challenging tasks directed at educational success
20
and performance. (Filak & Sheldon, 2003). (Ololube, 2006) describes that another problem is
the government’s position regarding the job performance of the teachers. They blame the
teachers for their negligence towards duties, laziness, purposeful tiredness and lack of
devotion, dedication and enthusiasm to work. They further argue that teacher’s level of
competence and effectiveness does not justify the constant request for salary increase and
other monetary benefits, incentives and better working conditions. While teachers on their
part argue that the existing pay package, benefits and working conditions do not satisfy their
basic needs and requirements in as much as other sectors of the economy have bigger salary
structure, better motivation and good working conditions.
Teachers are expected to render a very high degree of job performance, and the
Ministry of Education is always curious regarding the job performance of its teachers(
Oloube, 2006) . Also, the Ministry of Education demands a very high level of loyalty,
patriotism, dedication, hard work and commitment from its teachers (Ubom & Joshua, 2004).
Similarly, the roles and contexts of educations’ motivational methods and tools cannot be
ignored because high motivation enhances productivity which is naturally in the interests of
all educational systems( Ololube ,2005).
Chughtai & Zafar (2006) conducted a study to examine and verify if selected personal
characteristics, facets of job satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational justice
significantly explained variance in the organizational commitment of university teachers in
Lahore, Rawalpindi/ Islamabad, and Peshawar, the three major cities of Pakistan: Personal
characteristics contains age, tenure/experience, marital status, educational qualification, trust
in university management and job involvement. The findings show that the presence of
certain working condition like autonomy and job challenge might bolster perceptions of
personal competence which is likely to lead to increased commitment.
Ercan & Bülent (2011) state thate there are many variables that can affect the
21
productivity. The most important variable is the teacher. A productive teacher is a
person who is determined to make the student learn in the best way( Ataklı, 1999).
Teacher is a person who refers to the plans and programs during the teaching and
learning process. For this reason, achievement or failure in achievement of the education
activities depends mostly on the teacher. Therefore, the success of the teaching and education
activities mostly depends on the teacher (Akkutay, 1996). Moreover, teacher is the most
important factor in the process of elevating the quality of education up to the expected level.
Ronit (2001) carried out a research study on the influence of the style of leadership
on teacher’s job satisfaction ( Zembylas & Papanastasiou ,2004) made a research on teacher
job satisfaction in the schools of( Cyprus., Butt & Lance, 2005) found close relationship
between teacher’s workload and job satisfaction. Research on teacher job satisfaction has also
been carried out in Lithuania. (Rupsiene & Gustiene, 2005) made an analysis on job
motivation of gymnasium teachers. (Rybeliene, 2007) researched the inter-relationship
between teacher job satisfaction and subjective psychological wellbeing. (Laurinaityte, 2008)
made an assessment on job satisfaction of gymnasium teachers and college lecturers in
relation to their personality traits(Astrauskaite, 2009) explored the relation between teacher’s
job satisfaction and threats/harassment from the end of their co-workers.
Satisfaction or non-satisfaction of the teacher during his profession, also leads to bring
changes in the school’s structure and application. Teachers’ satisfaction levels positively
affects school’s structure and quality of educational activities; A satisfied teacher, either from
the individual characters or the job characters, will be more productive and desirous. If the
teachers’ personal needs/desires and expected work characteristics are fulfilled they are more
motivated and productive( Bilgin, 1986).
The dissatisfaction of the teachers with their work not only affects their own
personalities, but negatively affects their schools too. A low level of satisfaction of teachers
22
with the job leads to affect themselves and the school negatively. Teachers who are
disappointed with the job can become reactionary against their job.
Canadian teachers are highly depressed. According to the (Canadian Teacher’s
Federation, 2001), six out of ten teachers surveyed. It was found that their job is more
stressful now than it was two years ago. The 2006 Ontario College of Teachers annual
survey, entitled “The State of the Teaching Profession” found Ontario teachers are confronted
with high levels of stress, wherein 13% of teachers indicating that they feel depressed and
under stress all the time, compared to only 7% of workers in the general public
(Jamieson, 2006).
The Ontario College of Teachers also carried out a survey of education graduates
of the year 2001. It was found that the second highest reason for teachers leaving the
profession,was due to highly unfavourable and stressful working conditions.
(McIntyre, 2006). According to the Ontario College of Teachers, “there are growing signs of
unrest in the profession” (Browne, 2007). The Ontario College of Teacher’s annual “State of
the Teaching Profession” phone survey, which contacted more than one thousand teachers,
arrived at the conclusion that “only 78 per cent are happy with the job they are doing, while
70% are satisfied with their school and 73 per cent are satisfied with the profession as a
whole” (Browne).
According to Bashir & Ramay (2008) the factors of organizational commitment
among IT Professionals in Pakistan and suggested that procedural justice, information sharing
and work policies are the responsible factors to lower turnover rates of the professionals.
They are fond of challenging work, advancement in their profession. While( Bodla & Naeem,
2004) explored the Motivator and Hygiene Factors which spells out Overall Job Satisfaction
among Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives’ and derived that female sales representatives
are comparatively more satisfied with overall job than their male counterparts. Master degree
23
holders are more satisfied with job than those having graduate degrees at their credits.
Married individuals are somewhat more satisfied with job when compared with unmarried
individuals. The employees having more than five years are comparatively satisfied with job
than those with less than five years’ experience.
There are many factors which has effects on the teachers’ satisfactions. Chapman &
Lowther (1982) identifed the following factors that affect the teachers’ job satisfactions.
1. Teacher’s character.
2. Teacher’s abilities and skills at their profession duties.
3. The criterion at assessing the career achievement of teacher.
4. The state of the career achievement.
5. Honors and rewards
Job satisfaction of the teachers is also a key factor in their educational institution’s
success. Researchers observed that responsibility of teachers with authority, authorization to
use the education time efficiently, supporting teache;rs in taking positive and innovative risk,
providing activities, opportunities and necessary tools for improvement are the necessary
guarantees for successful educational institutions (Cotton, 2003). There can be no two
opinions that success of the educational institutions is dependent on the teachers.
Analyzing teachers’ characteristics in relation to their job and the factors that affect
these are important. The job satisfaction, an important signs of teacher’s attitudes in general
meaning, can be expected to affect their values. In this research, it is aimed to elaborate the
job satisfaction and values of the teachers. In this regard a study was conducted to find
answers to the following questions:
Is there any meaningful relation between the job satisfaction and the humanitarian
values of teachers?
In which level do the humanitarian values of teachers lead to regression in their job
24
satisfaction?
Analytical studies have been conducted on the importance of teacher job satisfaction
from different angles. However, many researchers focused on the psychological or intrinsic
aspects of this issue. (Verner,2009), (Bareket, 2009),(Ololube, 2006),(Morgan and O’Leary,
2004) and( Brunette, 2001). This Job Satisfaction aims at researching teacher job satisfaction
using variables rarely examined which comprise commute, age, education qualification/level,
and years of experience on the current position.
According to Ferguson et al (2012) the purpose of the research is twofold. First, we
sought to identify which occupational stress factors predict and leads to teacher anxiety and
depression. Second, we tried to identify significant predictors of teacher job satisfaction. We
believe our research is unique in its kind because most research on teacher stress examine
levels of stress, stress factors, and symptoms of stress, but silent regarding examination and
checking the relationship among these factors so that statements about predictors of teacher
anxiety and depression can be made.
Abdullah et al (2009) conducted research study on job satisfaction among secondary
school teachers. It was found that male teachers are comparatively more satisfied than
female teachers. Graduate teachers are more satisfied than under-graduate teachers and the
teachers in high rank and more experience are more satisfied than the ordinary teachers.
(Iqbal & Anwar, 2007) stated positive working circumstances are very important factor for
job satisfaction among female teachers.
Empirical evidence regarding job satisfaction of higher education teachers is scarce in
the international literature (Oshagbemi, 2003),(Tack & Patitu, 1992).The research studies on
teachers’ job satisfaction levels barely have overlapping results. According to (Pearson &
Moomaw, 2005), the main reason for this is that the research studies analyzed different
indicators about Teachers’ in-class and in-school roles and their job satisfaction levels.
25
According to Latham (1998), teachers give more importance on internal factors of job
satisfaction. Their relations with students, in-class relations, Students’ educational conditions,
freedom in teaching methods, and class activities and relations with other teachers and
managers play a bigger role in job satisfaction when compared to the external factors. The
Ministry of Education demands a very high measure of loyalty, patriotism, dedication, hard
work and Commitment from its teachers (Ubom & Joshua , 2004).
2.4 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in economics, the private sector
or citizen sector, is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of private
enterprise for profit, and is out of control of the state. In contrary to Private Sector,
enterprises that are part of the state, constitutes the public sector. Private, non-profit
organizations are regarded as part of the voluntary sector, a sub-section of the private sector.
Sohaib ( 2011) stated that educational practices exist in Pakistan. However lack of
uniformity between Public and Private Universities has been observed and differ in many
aspects but still their educational systems resemble each other to a maximum extent. Pakistan
being an underdeveloped country and its education system remained neglected for a few
decades particularly the education at Higher (university) level.
2.4.1 The Private Sector
The private sector is composed of organizations which are owned by private
individuals and independent of the control of the government. These usually include
corporations (both profit and non-profit), partnerships, and charities. Simply it can be defined
that the private sector is by thinking of organizations that are not owned or operated by the
government. For example, retail stores, credit unions, and local businesses will operate in the
private sector.
26
Ministry of National Education (2008) reported that between 2002-2007 there has
been a continuous increase in the number of students attending private education institutions
and the number has reached 1.07 to 1.827. While in 2002, the number of private education
institutions was 2.122; in 2007 this number reached 3.986. In the same period, the number of
teachers has increased from 19.881 to 47.621. In order to supply the need for qualified
personnel, private education institutions preferred transferring experienced teachers,
especially from public schools, by offering them better conditions.
2.4.2 The Public Sector
The public sector is usually composed of organizations that are owned and
operated by the govt of the state. These include Federal, Provincial, State, or Municipal
governments, depending on where you live. In Pakistan, a variety of research projects has
been started and the same continues to measure and analyze the job satisfaction of
employees in both public and private sectors of Pakistan.
Most of them used survey methods to assess and measure the attitudes of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bodla & Naeem, 2004) levels and degree of
job satisfaction (Shah & Jalees, 2004) demographic impacts and effects on organizational
support and motivation (Qammar et al., 2006). organizational commitment (Chughtai &
Zafar, 2006), the relationship of performance appraisal with productivity and job satisfaction
(Khan, 2006); determinants of organizational commitment among IT-Professionals (Bashir
& Ramay, 2008) and impacts of age, tenure on the job satisfaction of white collar employees
in Pakistan (Tirmizi et al., 2008),(Sattar et al., 2009).
The concept of job satisfaction is one of the most important area of the subject studied
in industrial and organizational psychology and in the sociology of work and occupations
(Mulinge, 2000). Given the challenges of global competitive environment, the think tank in
pakistan is putting heads together to reconsider performance public sector. (Sokoya, 2000).it
27
is frequently found that public sector organizations offer low pay package and limited
opportunities for development which restrains the talent (Barrows & Wesson, 2001).
Protheroe, Lewis & Paik (2002) describe that when solving problems, the level of
collaboration and communication between teachers and managers is essential in elevating job
satisfaction. Several research studies (Bogler, 2001),(Woods & Weasmer, 2002),( Ebmeir,
2003),( Jacobson, 2005) highlighted the importance of teacher’s active participation level and
weightage in decision making mechanism and of the school culture in which managers value
teachers’ ideas, in improving the commitment and job satisfaction levels of teachers.
Many research studies have been conducted on teachers’ job satisfaction levels in
Turkey. Some of these studies are as follow:
Regarding the result of (Özday’s ,1990) research, the factors that affect job
satisfaction levels of public and private school teachers are; salaries, work
conditions/Environment, inspections and promotions .
In their research, Bozkurt (2008) found out that teachers reach the highest degtree of
job satisfaction by their job’s content and the lowest job satisfaction level by their salaries. In
addition to the above, results of the study indicated that teachers evaluated their jobs as
fascinating and pleasurable even though they mentioned negative conditions in which they
performed their jobs. (Dikmen, 1995) compared the job satisfaction levels of teachers
with workers in other public organization. He found that teachers had a higher degree of job
satisfaction.
Minibaş (1990) stated that private school teachers had a higher job satisfaction level.
(Günbayı, 2001) compared the age and seniority of teachers and their relation with job
satisfaction, and found that senior teachers are comparativel more satisfied with their jobs as
compared to their juniors and older teachers have a higher job satisfaction level than younger
ones.(Kara, 2001) stated that teachers working in schools with fewer problems had a high
28
degree of job satisfaction. (Işıklar, 2000) has determined that there was a difference between
the degrees of job satisfaction high school teachers and of primary school teachers.
2.5 FACTORS AFFECT THE JOB SATISFACTION
Teachers are arguably the most important group of professionals for our nation’s future.
Therefore, it is disturbing to find that many of today’s teachers are dissatisfied with their
jobs. “The mean CES-D (depression scale) score of a sample of 75 Los Angeles teachers was
15.6, a value about twice the mean score obtained in community surveys” (Beer & Beer,
1992).General studies typically show that the more educated have lower job satisfaction
(Clark & Oswald, 1996). Regarding the result of (Özdayı, 1990)’s research, the factors that
affect the job satisfaction levels of public and private school teachers are salaries, work
conditions, inspections and promotions.
According to the scholar, job satisfaction is measured by the system of payment, work
content, work conditions and environment, management system, age and gender. A large No.
of scientists have explored job satisfaction from the point of view of demographic aspects:
gender, level of education, age, marital status and work experience.
Researchers have explored that job satisfaction is also influenced by the size of an
organization, number of staff and image of the company/organization.(Furnham, 2005)
asserts that job satisfaction is determined by age, gender, position, work experience,
education level, pay package, application of skills, occupational compatibility. (Boselie &
Wiele, 2002) emphasized on the quality of management, salary, team work inside the division
and intention to leave the organization.
The two factor theory of job satisfaction by Herzberg cited by (Juceviciene, 1996)
emphasizes the following job satisfaction (dissatisfaction) factors:
work itself, sense of responsibility, recognition by the managers and co-workers,
29
possibility of promotion, growth possibility, achievement possibility, general policy of the
company and administration, quality of supervision, relationships between the manager and
the subordinates, salary, working environment, relationships with peers, personal life, status,
security of job, life and honor.
Table 2: Infuencing factos of job satisfaction
Authors Factors influencing job satisfaction
The Motivation-
Hygiene Theory by
Herzberg
work itself, sense of responsibility, recognition by the managers and
co-workers, possibility of promotion, growth possibility, achievement
possibility, general policy of the company and administration, quality
of supervision, relationships between the manager and the
subordinates, salary, working environment, relationships with peers,
personal life, status, security of job, life and honor
(Furnham ,2005) Age, gender, position, work experience, education level, salary,
application of skills, occupation compatibility.
(Robbins, 2003) Job or job content that requires mental effort, adequate pay, favorable
working conditions and supportive/cooperative colleagues
(Boselie, Wiele,2002) The quality of management, salary, co-operation inside the division
and intention to leave the organization
(Ashraf , 2010) System of payment, work content, working conditions, management
system, age and gender
SOURCE: Agne Juozaitiene & Berita Simonaitiene(2011) Motivators of Teacher Job
Satisfaction http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01. .71.2. ss 541 cited on 08/07/2013.
The levels of overall job satisfaction of those who remain in one institution
continuously for first ten years, consistently higher than the corresponding levels of job
satisfaction of workers who changed their institutions befor completion of ten years
30
(Oshagbemi, 2000).
Kristen (2012) found that workload and behavior of students were significant
predictors of depression and anxiety. Ambiguous Job Discription and workload may be a root
cause of distress (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003). Although teachers may not have control over
workload clearly, the workload management is essential for teachers. New curriculum and the
implementation of new initiatives may lead to a feeling of work overload.
Many teachers may have difficulty in defining their role to be played and this may lead
to stress, as was found by (Revicki et al. 1993) in their work with emergency medicine
inhabitants and stress. For teachers, workload management may be difficult without definite
boundaries while they can manage classrooms. In reality they have little control over
individual student behavior. Employment conditions were also a significant factor of anxiety
among the teachers while job security and opportunities for promotion may be out of control
of a teacher. Support through career counseling and education about teacher collective
agreements may help in reducing anxiety and stress.
Ercan & Bülent (2011) values can be defined as a person's principles or standards of
behavior. The values is the basic element which determine all the human actions, reactions,
especially the ethical actions, whether it is obligatory or not (Ural, 1999), (Gündüz, 2005).
Though many discussions and researches are made on value concept by scientific and
philosophical thinkers but what value completely imply is not known clearly yet. Sometimes,
it is believed that the concept in which values take subjective property does not base on an
objective basis. Many of the researchers tried to explain the values by relating them to
various concepts. The entrance of value concept in various disciplines make this concept’s
description complicated and more difficult (Dilmaç, Kulaksızoğlu & Ekşi, 2007),( Dilmaç &
Ekşi, 2007).
31
Subsequent to a brief discussion on job satisfaction, each domain is listed in a separate
table that describes the studies relating to factors in that domain. The researcher referred to
the studies over the last several decades to compare and contrast the factors affecting teacher
satisfaction from one decade to another. The factors are in the following order:
compensation, pre-service trainings, external forces, school culture, in-service training,
motivation to teach and emotional factors.
Fig.2 The factors affecting teacher job satisfacation and teacher retention. Source: Karen S. Myers Giacometti ( 2005). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and retention of Beginning Teachers. Blacksburg, Virginia .retrieved in June 30,2013.
32
Fig.3 A summary of the factos affecting job satisfaction derived from the review of the literature. Source: Karen S. Myers Giacometti ( 2005). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and Retention of Beginning Teachers. Blacksburg, Virginia.Retreived in june30,2013).
Besides these, there are differences affecting job satisfaction levels such as teacher’s
education level, gender, ethnicity, age, and socio-economic conditions, their devotion to their
jobs make these differences more complicated and personal (Tye & O’Brien, 2002). (Davis &
Wilson,2000) discussed that teachers accept teaching as a profession and a sacred duty.
Therefore they give less importance to external factors and rewards about job motivation.
According to Rice, Gentile & McFarlin (1991), job satisfaction is a personal
common/overall feeling about one’s job which is conditioned by certain factors. Job
33
satisfaction is dependent work results and productivity. (Spector, 1997) defines job
satisfaction as a certain degree indicating how people like or dislike their job. (Robbins,
2003) states that job satisfaction reflects common attitude of the individual towards the job. If
people are satisfied with their job, their attitude towards the job is positive; on the contrary to
the above, if they are not satisfied with their job, their attitude is negative. Job satisfaction is a
significant factor of job and needs satisfaction and is considered a result of motivation –
motivated employees estimate their work optimistically.
However, there is also the dark side of the picture negative side of the teacher’s job.
Research shows that in many countries teachers are often suffering from pressure, stress,
anxiety and fear which cause damage to teacher’s health. They also suffer from job
dissatisfaction and often change it frequently.(Riemann’s, 2006) list of the most stressful jobs
was topped by the teaching profession. The biggest sources of stress is caused by several
work aspects that are not directly related to teaching or pedagogic activity: these are various
reports, plans, irrelevant roles to be played by the eachers and low salary. Different scholars
define factors that influence job satisfaction in a different way. (Robbins, 2003) points out the
factors that determine job satisfaction which are:
job or job content that requires mental effort, adequate payment for the work done,
conducive working conditions, supportive colleagues. The above-mentioned factors indicates
the correlation between employee’s behavior and organization. Consequently, job satisfaction
depends not only on the organization/company but also the employee. (Ashraf, 2010) notes
that men and women, young and elderly people can be satisfied differently.
In their research, Bozkurt (2008) found out that educators reach the highest job
satisfaction level by their job’s content and the lowest job satisfaction level by their salaries.
Besides the differences effecting job satisfaction levels such as teachers’ education level,
34
gender, ethnicity, age, and socio-economic conditions, their devotion to their jobs makes
these differences more complicated and personal (Tye & O’Brien, 2002).
Davis & Wilson (2000) discussed that teachers accept their jobs as a sacred duty and
therefore they give less importance to external factors and rewards about job motivation. The
items found to cause dissatisfaction and to produce short-term changes in job attitudes
included “company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations,
and working conditions” (Hertzberg, 1966). (Kaye & Jordan-Evans,1999) conducted a
quantitative study of business employees to determine why people remained in their jobs.
2.6 DIMENSIONS OF JOB SATISFACTION:THE FRAME WORK OF THE
STUDY
Hisricha & Lerner (1997) claimed that women entrepreneurs can play a vital role in the
development of small business sector. The idea of a job satisfaction is very complicated
(McCormick & Ilgen, 1985). (Locke, 1976), cited in( Sempane et al., 2002) presented a
summary of job dimensions that have been established to contribute significantly to
employees' job satisfaction. The particular dimensions represent characteristics associated
with job satisfaction. The dimensions are worked itself, pay, promotions, recognition,
working conditions, benefits, supervision and co-workers. This is postulated to influence
employees’ opinions of how interesting the work is, how routine, how well they are doing,
and, in general, how much they enjoy doing it (McCormick & Ilgen, 1985).
Hackman & Oldham presented the Job Characteristics Model, which is widely used as
a framework to study how particular job characteristics have impacts on job outcomes,
including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics which
are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback which affect three
critical psychological areas. These are experienced meaningfulness, experienced
35
responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results which affect work outcomes
(job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.).
Framework of the Study
The facets of job satisfaction which constitutes the framework of the study have been
mainly focused by the researcher in the literature review section. These dimensions of job
satisfaction have been discussed in detail.
1. Ability utilization: the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.
2. Achievement: The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job.
3. Activity: Being able to keep busy all the time.
4. Advancement: The chances for advancement on this job.
5. Authority: The chance to tell other people what to do.
6. Company policies and practices: The way company policies are put into practice.
7. Compensation: My pay and the amount of work I do.
8. Co-workers: The way my co-workers get along with each other.
9. Creativity: The chance to try my own methods of doing the job.
10. Independence: The chance to work alone on the job.
11. Moral values: Being able to do things that do not go against my conscience.
12. Recognition: The praise I get for doing a good job.
13. Responsibility: The freedom of to use my own judgment.
14. Security: The way my job provides for steady employment.
15. Social service: The chance to do things for other people.
36
16. Social status: The chance to be somebody in the community.
17. Supervision: The way my boss handles his men.
18. Supervision technical: The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.
19. Variety: The chance to do different things from time to time.
20. Working conditions: The working conditions.
Dessler (2001) defined motivation as the passion of a person to engage in some
activity. From the above definitions some issues are identified that deal with what starts and
stimulate human behavior, how those forces are directed and sustained as well as the
anticipated outcomes. While motivation is primarily concerned with target-directed behavior.
Job satisfaction refers to the fulfillment acquired by experiencing various job activities and
rewards. There is every possibility that despite the fact that an employee may display low
motivation from the organization’s perspective but enjoy every aspect of the job,(oloube
,2006). This state represents high level of job satisfaction. (Peretomode, 1991) also argued
that a highly motivated employee might also be dissatisfied with every aspect of his or her
job.
Ifinedo (2003) stated that a motivated worker is easy to spot by his or her quickness,
devotion, dedication, enthusiasm, focus, zeal, and general performance and contribution to
organizational objectives and goals. (Frye, 2004) analysed the relationship between equity
based compensation/return and firm performance and found positive and strong relationship
between the two.(Teseema & Soeters, 2006) found significantly positive co-relation between
promotion practices and perceived employee’s performance.
Job satisfaction can be influenced by different factors.( Opkara, 2002) described that
factors such as salary, the work itself, supervision & monitoring, relationship with colleagues
and opportunities for promotions have been found to add to job satisfaction. Finally the equal
37
opportunities of promotion in job have been found a contributor to job satisfaction.
Kosteas (2009) illustrated that some workers might enjoy the excessive authority over
co-workers that often accompanies a promotion. Given all of the proportions in which
promotions can affect worker’s careers and compensation, relatively little attention has been
paid to the importance of promotions as a determinant of job satisfaction. “Promotions are
also an important aspect of a worker’s career and life, affecting other facets of the work
experience”
Some scholars recognized job satisfaction within the Arab context, such as
(Alagbari, 2002), by addressing twenty dimensions of job satisfaction dealing with the
different aspects of the role and responsibility of head teacher in the Eastern Region of Saudi
Arabia. Along similar lines,(Alroyali, 2002) determined the dimensions of job satisfaction to
include the following six dimensions.
working conditions, relationships with educational administration, relationships with
colleagues, social status, salary and advancement.
Values are often used as a criterion at determining the success of workmen. Shared
values are important determiners in understanding organizational character and the sense of
organizational identity (Çelik, 1997). It is thought that, values are directly affective on
worker’s behaviors at work place because, shared values reflect on personal relations, too.
For example, it is universally seen that people who have similar values, have better relation
between themselves (Alzaidi , 2008) explored relationship with educational supervision.
This major theme refers to the responsibilities and the oligations of the educational
supervision centers and supervisors towards mentoring the school Head teacher and as well
as the teachers with regard to their performance and commitment. This theme includes the
other sub-themes of relationship with educational supervision centres, relationship with
38
educational supervisors, supervision practices and supervisory authority
In nursing, for example, predictors of job satisfaction include stress (Flanagan,
2006), (Rout, 2000), perceived relations with co-workers (Decker, 1997), social support from
the supervisor, reward, and control over work (Gelsema et al., 2006). Thus,it can safely be
stated that some research has been conducted research in the area of predictors of teacher job
satisfaction, clearly more research, particularly with Canadian teachers, is needed. Teachers
of urban schools found comparatively more responsible and sincere to their job and they are
more satisfied than the rural school teachers because of infrastructure (Tasnim, 2006). Recent
advancements in telecommunications and interactive networking through the internet will
decrease feelings of isolation and improve rural job satisfaction levels in the future (Worrell,
2004).
It is evident that the organizations which take care of their employees by providing
them facilities like work life balance facilities, generally have a greater numbers of satisfied
employees (Malik, Ahmad & Hussain, 2010). One of the researchers while examining the
impact of rewards and recognition on job satisfaction and motivation sample of Pakistani
sample employees defines employee work satisfaction as a positive pleasurable emotional
state as a result of work appraisal from one’s job experiences (Danish & Usman, 2010).
In another study conducted in Pakistani, sample the term job satisfaction is
defined as an overall feeling about one’s job or career in terms of specific facets of the job or
career (Nadeem, & Abbas, 2009). Job satisfaction formulates the employees more thoughtful’
responsible and concerned for the organization (Saleem, Mahmood & Mahmood, 2010). A
study results shows that the thing that affect life, more than the working hours is job
satisfaction and age (Eikhof, et. al. 2007). Work life balance means employee feels at liberty
to use flexible working hours programs to balance their work and other commitments like,
39
family, hobbies, art, travelling, studies and so forth, instead of only focusing on work.( Frame
& Hartog, 2003). Management fear for employees and customers significantly increases
employee’s job satisfaction and effective organizational obligation and indirectly reduces
their turnover intentions. (Alexandrov. Babakus & Yavas, 2007).
Malik, Zaheer, Khan & Ahmad, (2010) conducted a survey regarding relationship of
work life balance/ work life conflict and job satisfaction in a sample of MBBS doctors in
Pakistan and found that there is no significant effect of work life balance on job satisfaction.
In another study (Malik et al 2010) found a positive and significant relationship of job
satisfaction and work family balance. The authors analysed a relationship of the variables in a
sample of working women in Pakistan.Firstly, a lot of literature can be referred arguing for a
greater consideration of effect at work place as effect provides rationale for the negative
effects of PCB on employee’s work attitudes and behaviors(Conway & Briner, 2005),(Zhao
et al., 2007).
In the study of (Ghulam Ali Arain1, Imran Hameed1, Delphine Lacaze1, and Aziz
Javed, 2011) Job satisfaction is one of the most commonly studied work-attitudes that has
been investigated frequently in many empirical studies on negative consequences of
Psychological Contract Breach (PCB) (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994),(Suazo, 2009),
(Tekleab & Taylor, 2003), (Zhao et al., 2007). Job satisfaction refers to “a positive or
negative evaluative judgment of one’s job or job situation” (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) In
other words, satisfaction is a function of what one desires/wants, expect and gets from one’s
job (Locke, 1969).
Employees’ perceptions of PCB resulted from the shortfalls between what they
desired and what they got from their work, can seriously affect their job satisfaction level.
There are numerous empirical studies (Bal, Lange, Jansen, Velde, & Ashforth,
40
2008),(Petersitzke, 2009),(Suazo, 2009),(Suazo et al., 2005), (Zhao et al., 2007) which have
demonstrated that employees’ perceptions of PCB can significantly satisfy the workers from
their jobs.
Several factors are taken into consideration to influence a person’s desire to perform
work or behave in a certain way. These desires have been explained by the Need Based
theories; They explained motivation primarily as a phenomenon that occurs inside, or within
an individual. We can widely recognize two need-based theorists and their theories:
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg et al.’s two factor theory.
2.6.1 Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Abraham Maslow’s (1943, 1970) need-based theory of motivation is the most popular
and widely recognized theory of motivation and perhaps the most referenced of the content
theories. According to this theory, a person has five fundamental needs which are:
physiological, security, affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization. The physiological needs
include salary, food, shelter and clothing, good and comfortable working conditions. The
security needs include the need for safety, security, fair treatment, protection against threats,
job security etc.
Affiliation needs include the needs of being loved, accepted by others, part of a group
etc. whereas esteem needs include the need for recognition by the individuals and group of
individuals, respect, achievement, autonomy, independence etc. Finally, self-actualization
needs, which are the highest in the level of Maslow’s need theory, include realizing one’s full
potentials or self-development; I call it the pinnacle of one’s calling. According to Maslow,
once a need is satisfied, it remains no longer a need. It ceases to motivate employee’s
behavior and they are motivated by the need at the next level of the hierarchy.
41
Fig.4: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Source: Teachers Job Satisfaction and Motivation for School Effectiveness: An Assessment, cited on 28th July 2013.
Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman’s (1959) two-factor theory is mainly based on need
fulfillment because of their interest in how best to satisfy workers. They carried out several
studies to explore those factors that cause workers in white-collar jobs to be satisfied and
dissatisfied. The outcome of their study revealed that the factors that lead to job satisfaction
when present, are not the same factors that lead to dissatisfaction when absent. Thus, they
saw job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as independent of one another. They referred to those
environmental factors that leads to worker’s dissatisfaction as Hygiene Factors.
The presence of these factors according to Herzberg et al. are not responsible for
satisfaction and consequently failed to increase performance of workers in white-collar jobs.
The hygiene factors are company or organization policy and its administration, technical
supervision, salary, relationship with supervisors and work conditions. They are associated
with job content: Herzberg et al. indicated that these factors are perceived as essential but not
sufficient conditions for the satisfaction of workers. They further identified motivating factors
as those factors that make workers to work more and more with dedication.
42
They explored that these factors are associated with job context or what people
actually do in their work and classified them as follows: achievement, recognition, work
itself, responsibility and advancement. Achievement is represented by the force to perform
excellently for accomplishment of challenging tasks and achieve a standard of excellence.
The individual’s need for development/enhancement, growth, increased responsibility and
work itself are said to be the motivating factors (see Figure 5).
Fig: 5.
Source: Teachers Job Satisfaction and Motivation for School Effectiveness: An Assessment, cited on 28th July 2013.
43
Five factors of job satisfactions have been identified since long to representthe most
important characteristics of a job about which employees have effective responses which are,
work, pay, promotion, supervision and coworkers (Luthans, 2005). Job satisfaction is
associated with several attitudes including attitudes about the job characteristics,
compensation and benefits, status in society, social security, promotion opportunities,
technological challenges and respect (Tella et al., 2007).
Similarly,“having adequate work equipment, resources, and training opportunities and
an equitable workload distribution also significantly and positively affect employee job
satisfaction”( Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001). Other researchers evaluate 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’ satisfaction.” (DeVaney & Chen,
2003). (Luthans, 2005) advocated work, pay, promotion, supervision and coworkers are the
main determinants of job-satisfaction. (Khan et a l, 2012) stated job satisfaction is a serious
issue for every organization because satisfied employees perform good and vice versa.
Several factors combine together to determine the job satisfaction including the basic
factor (pay, work, supervision, promotion, collegues and work environment), the
demographic attributes of the employees and the broader social, organizational, and human
contexts constituting the totality of work condition (Shah & Jalees, 2004). Change in
background leads to bring changes in all other determinants of job satisfaction in any type of
an organization. Both, public and private sector organizations of developed and developing
countries are vulnerable to the contextual implications which substantially change the degree
of job satisfaction or otherwise (Sattar & Nawaz, 2011). In studies, job satisfaction attitude is
computed by summing up the satisfactions from work, pay, supervision, promotion and
collegues (Getahun et al. 2007).
44
2.7 PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION
All of the contextual factors affect the job satisfaction in different ways.
Broadly speaking, supportive contexts increases satisfaction while disliked contexts adds to
the dissatisfaction. A worker’s work condition is a part of broader contextual environment.
The context is made of human, organizational broader social context of the organization
within a society (Lee and Jamil, 2003). Some personal determinants of job satisfaction which
influences and measures performance levels of employees, are age, gender, occupational
level, tenure, educational qualification and organizational commitment in teaching.
For a worker, other individuals form the human context. Organizational
policies, it structure, and organizational culture make up the organizational environment
while broader social context contaains the value-system, political conditions, and educational
and technological levels in the society (Sattar et al., 2010). Human context is the environment
created by the existence and interaction of different individuals and groups of individuals
within which every employee works. He or she himself/herself is also an inseparable part of
the same human context. Humans bring several personality attributes as hereditary (Drucker,
1974) while they learn organization related personality characteristics being become a part of
a particular organization.
Satisfaction can’t be understood until and unless workforce is understood.
Psychological processes underlie dispositional causes, experience of emotionally significant
events at work, which in turn affects job satisfaction personality traits, core self-evaluation
correlates with employee satisfaction, extroversion, conscientiousness, personality traits also
influences job satisfaction (Saari & Judge, 2004). It is also evident from previous researches
that situational and personality variables change the nature of relationship between the age,
tenure and job satisfaction (Tirmizi et al, 2008). With regard to job performance, employee
personality may be more important than job satisfaction.
45
The link between job satisfaction and performance is a spurious relationship; instead,
both satisfaction and performance are the result of personality (Wikipedia, 2009). These five
dimensions of a human personality have been researched previously and now recognized as
the ‘Big-Five’ of personality in any organizational environment (Ongori, 2007), (Wikipedia,
2009).
Frye (2004) studied the relationship between equity based compensation and
firm performance and found positive relationship between the two. He emphasized that
for human resource, intensive firms compensation plays an important role in‘attracting and
retaining highly skilled employees. (Abdullah at eI, 2011) stated that the factors of job
satisfaction were the main determinants of employees’ job satisfaction (Sokoya, 2000),
(Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001), (Griffin, 2002),(DeVaney & Chen, 2003), (Saari & Judge,
2004).
There has been a lively debate as to whether the concern lies with a shortage of
teachers entering the field or with retaining teachers once they begin their careers( Hull,2004)
(Ingersoll, 2001), (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003),( National
Education Association, 2004). Demographic attributes have also been used to forecast the job
satisfaction (Shah & Jalees, (2004),(Tsigilis et al., 2006),(Tella et al., 2007),( Saifuddin et al.,
2010),( Sattar et al., 2010a, 2010b).
Job-satisfaction is widely accepted as countries, there are several studies such as
by (Saiyadain ,1996) ,(Sokoya, 2000), (Jiunn & Wu, 2005) ,(Chughtai & Zafar ,2009), Sattar
et al., 2010a & 2010b),(Sattar et al., 2009),(Sattar et al, 2010c). Change in context leads to
bring changes in the role of all other determinants of job satisfaction in any type of the
organization. Both public and private sector organizations of developed and developing
countries are susceptible to the contextual implications which substantially change the degree
of job satisfaction or otherwise (Sattar and Nawaz, 2011).
46
Organizational commitment and Job satisfaction are widely studied sector in
management literature(Bodla &Danish, 2009),( Bodla & Naeem, 2009a),( Bodla & Naeem,
2009b),( Parker et al, 2005), (Allen & Meyer, 1990) which are the precursors of employee’s
performance. These factors are more important to study in academic institutions, especially
higher educational institutions like universities which are the sources of human resources and
responsible for educating the intellect of nations. Teacher has occupied the central position in
educational system holding various important responsibilities. The overall performance of
universities exclusively depends upon their teachers and ultimately their level of commitment
and job satisfaction.
Organizations want their employees to ensure satisfaction to its employees to become
more productive and efficient. Therefore research is being conducted about different
dimensions of job like, work, salary, supervision, promotion co-workers and the demographic
impacts on the overall satisfaction of the workforce (Shah &Jalees, 2004),( Saifuddin et al.,
2010),( Sattar et al.,2010).
Organization selection, functional specialization and job matching including
placement are also increasing methods of job satisfaction.(Saari & Judge, 2004). Job
satisfaction consists of multidimensional feelings about the external and internal aspects of
the job (Kuchinke et al., 2009). As an outgrowth of globalization, the demographics, work,
world views of governance, institutional rules and organizational cultures are constantly
changing (Perry et al., 2006). Organizational culture being a complicated terminology, as
group cultures of an organization focus more on groups than organization. Organizational
culture aims at creating internal integrated bond by creating a closely-knit team of workers
and collegues with a view to create mutual expectations and commitment (Moynihan &
Pandey, 2007),( Saifuddin et al., (2010).
47
Organizational policies affect job satisfaction, particularly those relating to the
job assesment, standards of performance, good communication systems, follow-up research.
Thus, the employee’s trust in the management policies is an important determinant of
employee attitudes of job satisfaction.(Koh & Neo, 2000). The organizational context also
relates to the characteristics of organizational setting (i.e. organization’s reward systems,
objectives, or degree of formalization) in which the employee must perform work as well as
the exerting an influence on employee’s attitudes indirectly through job characteristics.
(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
Fruth, Bresdon & Kaston (1982) examined commitment to teaching and found
that inside motivation was the most powerful link to teacher performance. According to
(National centre for educational statistics Copyright, 2006),The Ball Foundation/Career
Vision. Article may be reprinted with permission. Career Vision is a career measurement and
assessment and consulting organization that is dedicated to helping people and success and
satisfaction in their work lives.
No doubt, work is defined in the context of a particular society under prevailing conditions,
however, work is considered as other name of life, status in the society and identity and
placing of an individual within the community, inside as well as outside of an organization.
(Nerison, 1999),(Lee & Jamil, 2003). Thus, the knowledge about the norms, traditions,
customs, values and culture of a country or region wherein an organization works is essential
to provide better satisfaction programs to the workers because cultural impacts are important
predictor of job satisfaction.(Saari & Judge, 2004). There is a strong relationship between job
satisfaction and the overall quality of life in society. (Alzaidi, 2008),(Sattar et al., 2010).
Depending on the type of cultural aspects like power distance, uncertainty Avoiding
forces, individuality and maleness, different workers are satisfied in accordance with their
48
position on all of these scales. A position on the continuum of each attribute (e.g., High
power distance on one end and Low power distance on the other) also indicates and measure
the nature of job satisfaction attitude expressed by the individual.(Rugman & Hodgetts,
2002), (Luthans, 2005). Pakistan has a very close cultural relationship with China in the sense
that like China, Pakistan is also high on collectivism and power distance.(Chughtai & Zafar,
2009).
Fig: 6.
Source: From the research paper Sattar at el,( 2012).
In every kind of job, the pay package has a positive relationship with job satisfaction
and is an important factor of employee’s job satisfaction as(Kamal et al 2009) described that
“However, in today's business climate of continuous changes and uncertainty, the importance
of job satisfaction to organizational performance and individual can be pay.” The same was
advocated by (Nguyen et al ,2003) in their Studies that “income is an important determinant
of job satisfaction.”
49
Security of job is an essential facet of job satisfaction for the teachers. Job security is
directly proportional to job satisfaction. The more the job is secure, the more the teachers are
satisfied with his or her job. According to (D.B Rao, 2003) “the primary sources of
satisfaction of teachers were in aspect of working with students, intellectual stimulation,
autonomy, holidays and job security”.
Several studies conducted in various organizations, revealed that age has a positive
relationship with job satisfaction (Robbins, 2001),(Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald, 2001)
also the studies of (Blood, Ridenour, Thomas, Qualls, & Hammer, 2002) found that job
satisfaction multiplies with age and work experiences. Young teachers frequently leave the
profession than older ones (Ingersoll, 2001). That older workers tend to be happier with their
jobs, have lower turnover rates, and miss fewer working days. (Naceur & Fook, 2001).
(Brown, 2005) explored a positive relationship between tenure and job satisfaction.
Research appears to be equivocal and has consistently found age to exert an
influence on job Satisfaction (Chambers, 1999), (Cramer, 1993),( Robbins, 2001),( Staw,
1995),(Tolbert &Moen, 1998). (Al-Mashaan, 2003) found that male employees report higher
level of job satisfaction as compared to females due to better employment chances and
promotion opportunities. It is contrary to many studies that male workers satisfied with their
job while many studies did not found any difference (Al-Mashaan, 2003).It may be justified
that female teachers comparatively work with more dedication and abide by the rules and
obey their heads. Prior research findings are more in favors of women satisfaction than males
across most worksites (Lambert et al, 2001).
Souza-Poza (2003) found that women’s satisfaction has declined substantially in
the past decade, whereas men’s job satisfaction has remained fairly constant.(Butler &
Ehrlich, 1991) examined the proposition that the organizational position held by a job
50
incumbent influences the attitudes, job satisfaction and performance levels of employees.
Tenure refers to the length of time for which the individual has worked for the organization.
(Lim et al., 1998). Research is unequivocal with respect to the relationship between job
satisfaction and educational level.(Camp, 1994),( Kuntz, Bora & Loftus, 1990),(Loscocco,
1990),(Ting, 1997),( Vorster, 1992).
2.7.1 Job Satisfaction Model
Fig: 7. Source: International Journal of social Economics Volume 30 Issue: 12-2013 cited on 1ST September 2013.
2.8 SOME RESEARCH STUDIES IN THE AREA OF JOB SATISFACTION
Different writers and researchers have explained the job satisfaction in their own works.
Brief summary of these areas are as under:
According to P. Chimanikire et al (2007) he stated about factors affecting job
satisfaction among academic professionals in tertiary institutions in Zimbabwe that “The
51
broad objective of this study was to determine factors affecting job satisfaction among
academic professionals in tertiary institutions of Zimbabwe against the backdrop of high
brain drain in the sector. The results of the study showed that a greater proportion of the
academic staff was not satisfied with their jobs. Reasons for dissatisfaction include high
volume of work, inadequate salaries, allowances, loans to facilitate purchase of housing
stands and cars. There is need to craft a responsive incentive package that addresses the
concerns of academic staff on issues related to job satisfaction and thus stave off international
migration to other countries.”
Malik stated that,” Job satisfaction is one of the most widely discussed issues in
organizational behaviors, personnel and human resource management and organizational
management. As teaching does require a great deal of thoroughness and commitment, so in
teaching it is more important to have mental commitment and loyalty than physical presence.
The major purpose of this descriptive correlation study was to examine factors affecting job
satisfaction of faculty members of University of Balochistan which is explained by Herzberg
job motivator and hygiene factors.
The faculty members were generally satisfied with their jobs. However, male faculty
members were less satisfied than female faculty members. The factor “work itself” was the
most motivating aspect for faculty. The least motivating aspect was “working conditions.”
The demographic characteristics were negligibly related to overall job satisfaction. The
factors “work itself,” and “advancement” explained 60 percent of the variance among faculty
members’ overall level of job satisfaction. The demographic characteristics (age, years of
experience, academic rank, degree) were negligibly related to overall job satisfaction.
Muhammad Ehsan et al (2010) in their research study stated that,” the purpose of this
investigation was to determine the impact of teachers’ satisfaction with job dimensions on
52
perceived organizational commitment in public sector universities of Pakistan. In addition,
the study aimed at exploring to what extent these teachers are committed to their universities
and satisfied with different dimensions to their job. The findings of the study indicated that
the satisfaction with work-itself, quality of supervision and pay satisfaction had significant
positive influence on organizational commitment of faculty members. They had high degree
of organizational commitment and satisfaction with work-itself, supervision, salary,
coworkers and opportunities for promotion.”
Victor. De Santis, Smantha & L.Durst (1996) stated that “renewed interest in
increasing performance levels in government should interest public administrators in
identifying factors that foster worker satisfaction. However, little empirical attention has been
given to evaluating job-satisfaction levels among public-sector employees. And given that the
reward system in the public sector systematically differs from that of the private sector (in
terms of pay, benefits, and psychic value), it seems likely that studies of satisfaction levels
among private-sector employees may not be applicable to public-sector employees. This
paper utilizes analyses of the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY) to compare
job-satisfaction levels among public-and private-sector employees to examine the actual work
experiences, personal characteristics and job-satisfaction levels of a selected set of public and
private workers. If the factors that contribute to job satisfaction differ for public-and private-
sector employees, as our results suggest they do, then such an analysis is long overdue.
Oshagbemi (2000) in his study titled "Gender differences in the job satisfaction of
university teachers" stated that, ”In recent years there has been a substantial rise in the
number of women entering the work force. One consequence of this trend is that it has
generated considerable interest in the relationship between gender and job satisfaction. The
objective of this study was to investigate the effects of gender on the job satisfaction of UK
academics. A questionnaire including several demographic questions such as gender, rank
53
and age was administered to 1,102 university teachers. A total of 554 responses were
received, giving a response rate of 50.3 per cent.
The results indicated that gender does not affect the job satisfaction of university
teachers directly. However, the interaction effect of gender and rank was statistically
significant (p < 0.05). Overall, female academics at higher ranks namely, senior lecturers,
readers and professors, were more satisfied with their jobs than male academics of
comparable ranks. The implications of this finding and other results are explored.
Alam (2003) conducted a research study on the Job satisfaction of female workers in
different garment factories in Dhaka city and concluded the degree of satisfaction is
positively correlated with level of wages they are offerred. (Ziaul et al ,2005) in their study
on comparative job satisfaction of senior male and female executives in Bangladesh, stated
that there was a minute difference between male and female executives regarding satisfaction
in different dimensions of job. According to( Gupta & Joshi, 2008) job satisfaction is an
important technique mostly adopted to motivate the employees to work harder. It had often
said that a satisfied employee is a productive employees. Job satisfaction is very important
because most of the people spend a major part of their life at their work place.
Aswathappa (2003) perceived that the job satisfaction of employees can be measured
through the system of wage payment. Different organizations adopt different type of
salary/wage payment systems. Along with wages and salaries they offer incentives, and
nonmonetary benefits. According to him, he explained 3 theories of remuneration:
A. Reinforcement and Expectancy Theory
B. Equity Theory
C. Agency Theory
54
Velnampy (2008) explained that Job Attitude and Employees Performance of Public
Sector Organizations in Jaffna District, Sri Lanka concluded that job satisfaction has impact
on future performanceof workers through the job involvement, but higher performance also
makes people feel more satisfied, committed and dedicated. It is a cycle of event that keeps
with the development perspective. Attitudes such as satisfaction and involvement are
important to the employees to have high levels of performance.
The results of the study showed that attitudes like satisfaction and involvement, and
performance are significantly interrelated.(Brown et al, 2008) in their study described that
"Changes in HRM and job satisfaction, 1998– 2004, evidence from the Workplace
Employment Relations Survey" . They examined that their significant multiplication in
satisfaction with the sense of achievement from work between 1998 and 2004, a large no. of
other measures of job quality are found to have increased over this period as well. It also
finds a recession in the incidence of many formal human resource management practices.
The paper spells out a weak association between formal human resource management
practices and satisfaction with sense of achievement. Improvements in perceptions of job
security, the condition of employment relations and managerial responsiveness are the
immenant factors in explaining the rise in satisfaction with sense of achievement between
1998 and 2004. We infer that the increase in satisfaction with sense of achievement is due in
large part to the existence of falling un-employment during the period under study, which has
compelled employers to make improvements in the quality of work.
Jain et al (2007) explained that there was no considerable difference between
managers and engineers in terms of their job satisfaction and both the groups were almost
equally satisfied with their jobs. (Shah & Shah, 2008) explored relationship between fatigue
and Job Satisfaction variables which were found to be significantly negative.( Shahu & Gole,
55
2008) stated that companies that were lacking certain areas of job satisfaction & job stress
need to be developed so that their employees show good performance level, as it is provided
that performance level lowers wit high satisfaction scores.
Khan (2006) stated that job satisfaction in the combination of psychological and
environmental circumstances cause person to fully say, “I am satisfied with my job”.
(Sharaf et al., 2008) considered job satisfaction among the private care physician and analysis
that job satisfaction is pre-requisite to satisfy an employee. In job satisfaction work, pay,
promotion, peers is considered as multidimensional in nature. (Ennis & McConville, 2004).
(Ayaz Ul Haq et al., 2010) explored the issues influencing the job satisfaction of the teachers
in private colleges of Rawalpindi and Islamabad (Pakistan) and further the overall effects of
job satisfaction on turnover intention.
Results reflected that culture of an organization and its reward system have positive
impacts on job satisfaction whereas workload and leadership role have negative impacts on
job satisfaction. Job satisfaction itself has close relation with turnover intention. According to
(Artz, 2010) Fringe benefits are significant and positive determinants of job satisfaction.
The stress with which teachers are confronted in paying attention to their
responsibilities has become a matter of great interest recently. A major reason for this interest
is that some times this stress becomes a reason for the professional depression.(Embich,
2001),(Mearns & Cain, 2003). In teaching profession turnover intention is supposed to be due
to dissatisfaction with the job (Sari, 2004). Job satisfaction is a concept in which two
independent concepts are studied that are job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.
When the employees feel that they have many assignments to accomplish in a short
time, they feel undrr stress (Cardenas et al., 2004). Whenever there is an interaction between
employees and his surroundings i.e environment, they feel overloaded. Sometimes the
56
employees take this overload as over burden and beyond their capacity. Workload is,
therefore subjective in nature. Overload is regarded as quantitative and qualitative in nature.
Quantitative workload exist when the employees feel they have to perform many tasks, too
much work, shortage of time to complete the assigned work etc. Qualitative overload exist
when there is lack of ability to perform up to the mark. In qualitative overload we ignore the
time factor (Beehr & Glazer, 2005).
Mostly the professionals are stressed due to overload, low reward and return. lack of
training opportunities and lack of innovation and awareness about education (Eripek, 2001),
(Ataman, 2001). As explained by (Thomas, 2003) in a male dominated society, the male are
lean and mean. They cannot recognize with open heart the female’s experiences and
contribution. This led to female teachers dissatisfaction. (Rao & Sridhar, 2003) It is believed
in our society that teachers are dissatisfied with their jobs. (Ahmad et al, 2010) found that
attitude towards work and performance has positive role and relation with job satisfaction in
organizational commitment and weak relation between performance and job satisfaction.
New teachers are comparatively less satisfied with their job than teachers with experience
(Mertler, 2001),(Harris & Associates, 2001).Within the educational context,(Crossman &
Harris, 2006) classified the factors that affect job satisfaction, into three general categories.
These are:
1. Environmental factors such as the work itself and the environment.
2. Psychological factors such as personality, behavior, and attitudes.
3. Demographic factors such as gender.
Alagbari (2003) explained that the satisfying factors were pay, achievement,
relationships with teachers, compatibility between qualifications, experience and work, social
status and security of job while the cooperation of parents, school buildings, availability of
57
tools, equipment and school utilities were seen as tools of dissatisfaction.(Almutairi, 2005)
stated that the main source of satisfaction is the relationships with teachers and who regarded
incentives and salaries as a source of dissatisfaction.(Alonazi, 2001) considered the
secondary school head teacher and concluded by identifying responsibilities, recognition,
appreciation, relationships with colleagues as sources of satisfaction and promotion as a
source of dissatisfaction.
In the study Karen S. Myers Giacometti (2005) in Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction
and Retention of Beginning Teachers the admitted assumption is that job satisfaction leads to
teacher’s retention (Choy et al,Harris & Associates, 2001),(Taylor, 2004). If a teacher
isaccomodated with these aspects of his or her career, the decision is often made to keep up
and be a stayer. If a teacher is dissatisfied with these aspects of his or her career, the decision
is often made to quit and leave the job. In general, overall job satisfaction has been defined as
“A function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what
one perceives it as offering”(Portoghese, 2011).
58
Chapter 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURE
This chapter presents an overview of the research methodology that was used to
investigate the comparative study of job satisfaction of public and private university teachers
in KPK, Pakistan. This section of the study includes brief discussion of population, procedure
for selection of sample, sample size, followed by instruments of data collection, their
descriptions and procedure for data collection. The investigation under various captions is
narrated as under:
3.1 POPULATION
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the job satisfaction of public and
private university teachers in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. There were 25
universities in KPK (15 public sectors and 10 private sectors), so all the male and female
university teachers working during 2010-12 in public and Private Sector universities
constituted the population of the study. In transmission of higher education both public and
private university play important role in Pakistan. Public universities are total financed and
controlled by Govt: of Pakistan. While private universities generate fund from their own
resources. HEC only provide guidelines to private universities. Teachers play very important
role in teaching-learning process. Job satisfaction affects teachers job in classroom. That’s
why the researcher was interested to compare job satisfaction of public and private
universities teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
3.2 SAMPLE
The desired information was generally collected from representative sample wherein
time and resources were kept in consideration. The present study was concerned with
59
comparative job satisfaction of public and private university teachers in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. All the university teachers of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa constituted the
population of the study but it was difficult to collect data from the entire population,
therefore, sampling was resorted to. It was done through several stages. In first stage care was
taken that the teachers included in the sample would represent the population relevant with
the study. Random sampling technique was used for the selection of sample.
In the second stage, the researcher focused on the selection of universities. For this
purpose the adviser helped the researcher in selecting the universities. Hence, the total
number of universities selected for this study were 14. There were 25 Universities in the
province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, out of which following 14 universities were taken as a
sample:
Table 3: Composition of the sample universities.
Public Sector Universities Private Sector Universities
Gomal Univversity, Dera Ismail Khan CECOS University of Information Technology
and Emerging Sciences, Peshawar
Hazara University, Mansehra City University of Science and Information
Technology, Peshawar
Institute of Management Sciences,
Peshawar Gandhara University, Peshawar
Kohat University of Science and
Technology, Kohat Preston University, Kohat
NWFP University of Agriculture, Peshawar Qurtaba University of Science and Information
Technology, D. I. Khan
University of Engineering and Technology,
Peshawar
Sarhad University of Science and Information
Technology, Peshawar
University of Peshawar, Peshawar Northern University, Nowshera
60
At the third and last stage the faculty lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate
Professors and Professors were selected. For this purpose a list was obtained from the
concerned universities of the teachers of different departments. The sample consisted of 293
male and 78 female teachers. The sample size was justified on the Rule of Thumb of John
Curry. This rule of thumb is below:
Sample Size Rule of Thumb
10-100 100%
101-1000 10%
1001-5000 5%
5001-10000 3%
10000+ 1%
Dr. John Curry, Professor of Educational Research, North Texas State University (Retired)
Out of the selected universities, the table below shows the composition of the sample.
Table 4: Composition of the sample university teachers.
University Male Female Total
Public 164 45 209
Private 129 33 162
Total 293 78 371
3.2.1 Rationale for Selection of Sample:
A survey approach was considered appropriate due to wide geographical area.
61
University teachers were selected because of their potential to respond to the instruments of
the study. They were experienced and in a better position to share their views about job
satisfaction in both the sectors - public and private. Furthermore, they had the opportunities to
work in different environment during their career. So, collection of data from teachers
working under the universities were considered as the best source for this specific research.
Moreover, it was also believed that they were responsible practicing teachers in the
universities to provide the appropriate information.
3.3 INSTRUMENT
The researcher had adopted Minnesota questionnaire for data collection. The
researcher has hired this questionnaire from Department of Vocational Psychology,
Minnesota University, USA. The questionnaire consisted of 20 domains and 100 items. The
20 domains of the long form MSQ was consisted of the item as follows:
Table:5 Questionnaire composition of the Itmes.
Scale Items
Ability utilization ----------------------------- 7 27 47 67 87
Achievement ---------------------------------- 19 39 59 79 99
Activity------------------------------------------ 20 40 60 80 100
Advancement --------------------------------- 14 34 54 74 94
Authority --------------------------------------- 6 26 46 66 86
Company policies and practices---------- 9 29 49 69 89
Compensation -------------------------------- 12 32 52 72 92
Co-workers ------------------------------------ 16 36 56 76 96
62
Creativity -------------------------------------- 2 22 42 62 82
Independence -------------------------------- 4 24 44 64 84
Moral values ---------------------------------- 3 23 43 63 83
Recognition ----------------------------------- 18 38 58 78 98
Responsibility -------------------------------- 17 37 57 77 97
Security ---------------------------------------- 11 31 51 71 91
Social service --------------------------------- 1 21 41 61 81
Social status ---------------------------------- 8 28 48 68 88
Supervision –– human relations -------- 10 30 50 70 90
Supervision –– technical ------------------ 15 35 55 75 95
Variety ----------------------------------------- 5 25 45 65 85
Working conditions ------------------------ 13 33 53 73 93
The researcher has got consent letter from the concerned institute of the Minnesota
University (attached at annexure-B). The questionnaire consists of 100 items in which every
statement was followed by five responses like, Very satisfied, neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied. The statement was disseminated amongst the
respondents to respond in accordance with the above mentioned 05 responses. The
questionnaire appended at ( annexture-C) has clear directions on the first page for the
respondents and has been used by the researcher to measure the job satisfaction of the
university teachers of Public and Private Sectors. The teachers concerned were requested to
respond to the various items of the questionnaire honestly without fear and favour with the
assurance that their names and responses would be kept secret and confidential (annexed-D).
63
3.4 DATA COLLECTION
The researcher personally administered the questionnaire to the respondents. Letters
were addressed to the respective universities to provide the requisite data with the pledge that
the responses obtained through these questionnaires would only be used for research purpose.
Out of 420 distributed questionnaires, 373 teachers responded the useable questionnaires with
an overall response rate of 88.80%.
3.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA
Independent Sample t-test was applied for data analysis. Data collected through
questionnaires was analyzed by using the statistical package for Social Sciences SPSS
version 16 for Windows 2007.
Enueme & Egwunyenga (2008) categorized Mean scores into four categories in order to
know principals’ instructional leadership roles. These categories are as under:
3.50 – 4.00 = Very High Extent
2.50 – 3.49 = High Extent
1.50 – 2.49 = Low Extent
0.00 – 1.49 = Very Low Extent
Anyakoha, Uzuegbunam & Ezeike (1999) categorized Mean scores for the purpose of
knowing the extent to which the channels of communication meet information needs of
academics and administrators in Nigerian Universities. Mean scores were placed into the
following three categories:
< 2.00 = Never meets information needs
2.00 – 2.49 = Meets information needs
64
2.50 – 3.00 = Always meets information needs
For the purpose of knowing the extent of attitude of different communities towards
reproductive health education, Aziz (2009) placed Mean scores into the following three
categories:
1 – 1.69 = Negative Attitude
1.70 – 2.39 = Moderate Attitude
2.40 – 3.00 =Positive Attitude (Aziz, 2009).
To find out Means difference between the views of heads and teachers, university
heads and postgraduate college heads, natural and social sciences departments’ heads, male
and female heads, university and postgraduate college teachers, natural and social sciences
departments teachers, male and female teachers, t-test was employed.
The use of t-test enables one to test whether there is or not significant difference
between the samples means.Typical value for the significance level set for testing null
hypothesis was 0.05. Alpha level of statistical significance is placed at .05 for all types of
research studies in social sciences (Stevens, 1996).
One type of t-test may be performed:
1. Independent Samples: Cases are classified into two groups and a test of Mean difference is
performed for specified variables.
Typical values which are chosen for the significance level for testing null hypothesis are .05
and .01. Means of independent samples are compared through t-test.
Independent Sample T-test:
The Independent-Samples T Test procedure compares means for two groups of cases.
Ideally, for this test, the subjects should be randomly assigned to two groups. In such
65
situations, it is to ensure that differences in other factors are not marking or enhancing a
significant difference in means.
The formula for t-test if the samples are related, i.e. two measures from the same subject,
is:
Where = Mean of sample 1
= Mean of sample 2
= number of subjects in sample 1
= number of subjects in sample 2
= Variance of sample 1 =
= Variance of sample 2 =
66
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to compare job satisfaction of public and private
university teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. This chapter deals with the
presentation and analysis of data. This chapter consists of 42 tables on 20 domains of job
satisfaction. The interpretation of these tables reflects the overall comparison of job
satisfaction of public and private university teachers.
Table 6: Comparison between perceptions of faculty members of public and private
universities on overall job satisfaction through demographic variables
designation and experience.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 113
3.76 3.70
47.36 46.71
1.075
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 24
3.77 3.86
44.72 32.02
0.890
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
4.09 3.73
25.42 70.39
1.508
Professor Public Private
15 11
3.91 3.97
33.19 56.30
0.385
10 years experience
Public Private
167 123
3.73 3.71
44.59 48.90
0.458
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
4.04 3.84
35.51 37.90
1.713
Above 20 years
experience
Public Private
14 6
4.06 4.04
54.59 58.92
0.066
Table 6 shows significance of difference between public and private university of all
categories with different experience regarding job satisfaction. Since t-value was found less
than table value at 0.05 level no significant difference was found between the perceptions of
public and private sector university teachers of all level with varied experience.
67
Table 7: Comparison between perceptions of faculty members of public and private
universities on overall job satisfaction through demographic variables gender,
age and qualifications.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Male teachers Public Private
164 125
3.81 3.75
44.49 45.23
1.153
Female teachers Public Private
45 33
3.68 3.70
47.23 56.29
0.193
Teachers of 30 years age Public Private
52 27
3.71 3.75
47.69 47.91
0.395
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 121
3.79 3.74
43.52 47.51
0.980
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 95
3.78 3.70
48.76 46.99
1.166
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 39
3.70 3.79
45.45 44.21
0.919
Teachers having Ph.D degree Public Private
47 22
3.92 3.82
34.16 57.36
0.847
Table 7 shows that t-value was found less than table value at 0.05 level in case of both
male and female university teacher of each category with different length of experience and
with each level of qualification. Hence, no significant difference between perceptions of
public and private university male and female teachers was found on job satisfaction.
68
Table 8: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet ability
utilization.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
164 129
19.34 19.03
2.72 2.52
1.026
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.34 19.03
2.72 2.52
1.026
Female teachers Public Private
164 129
19.422 19.663
2.658 3.324
0.086
Teachers of 30 years age Public Private
52 27
19.40 19.22
2.56 2.81
0.289
Teachers of 31 to 50 years agePublic Private
145 125
19.50 19.05
2.97 2.91
1.24
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 98
19.34 18.79
2.93 2.91
1.33
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
19.26 19.35
2.95 3.06
0.135
Teachers having Ph.D degree Public Private
47 22
20.59 20.18
2.26 2.87
0.647
Table 8 shows comparison between the views of public and private university male
and female of 30 years of age and teachers of 31 to 50 years age having M.Phil and Ph.D
degree on job satisfaction facet of ability utilization. Since the t-value in case of all the above
samples was found less than the table value at 0.05 level, the no significant difference was
found between their views about job satisfaction on the facet of ability utilization.
69
Table 9: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet ability utilization.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.38 18.83
2.86 2.97
1.49
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.63 19.36
3.06 2.30
0.391
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.70 18.80
1.94 3.58
1.47
Professor Public Private
15 11
20.733 22
1.98 2.04
1.58
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.33 18.82
2.85 3.02
1.47
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
20.14 20.14
2.83 1.95
0.008
Table 9 shows comparison between opinions of public and private university lectures,
assistant professors, associate professors and professors with 10 years experience, and
experience of 11-20 years. Since t-value of all these variables was found less than table value
at 0.05 level, there is no significant difference between the opinions of these respondents on
the facet of ability utilization.
70
Table 10: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet
advancement.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
23.26 17.57
2.29 3.82
16.66
Male teachers Public Private
208 164
23.28 17.62
2.28 3.79
16.85
Female teachers Public Private
45 33
23.00 17.42
1.91 3.96
7.46
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
22.55 17.22
2.72 3.98
6.24
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
23.38 17.66
2.27 3.81
14.67
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 98
23.22 17.32
2.77 3.96
12.24
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
22.83 17..67
1.95 3.57
8.29
Teachers having Ph.D degree
Public Private
47 22
23.89 18.59
.86 3.62
6.77
Table 10 reflects significance of difference between perceptions of public and private
university male and female teachers of 30 or less than 30 years as well as teachers of 31 to 50
years age having Master, M.Phil and Ph.D degrees on job satisfaction facet advancement.
Since the t-values of all these variables was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level, a
significant difference was found between the responses of teachers of all categories of public
and private universities on the component of advancement which means that there was
significant difference between the views of these categories of respondents on the component
of advancement. It is also clear from above table that the teachers of all categories of public
sector universities were found more satisfied with their job as compared to those from private
sector universities.
71
Table 11: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet advancement.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
23.02 17.18
2.71 3.90
13.56
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 29
23.57 18.80
1.15 2.82
8.098
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
24.00 18.50
.000 3.37
5.15
Professor Public Private
15 11
24.00 18.72
.65 4.58
3.78
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
23.17 17.34
2.43 3.90
14.79
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
23.57 18.18
1.57 3.45
7.39
Table 11 shows that lecturers of public sector universities were found more satisfied
as compared to those of private sector universities on the facet of advancement bsignificant
difference between theecause the t-value was found much greater than the table value at 0.05
level of significance.
Similarly the public sector university teachers with 10 years experience were found
more satisfied as compared to those from private sector as the t-value was found much
greater than the table value at 0.05 level.
72
Table 12: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet company
policies and practices.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
14.75 10.34
1.10 2.82
18.69
Male teachers Public Private
208 164
14.76 10.37
1.08 2.80
18.95
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
15 8.78
.00 3.05
11.66
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
14.59 10.25
1.49 2.95
7.16
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
14.74 10.36
1.08 2.84
16.24
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
14.62 9.96
1.35 2.85
14.71
Teachers having M.Phil
degree
Public Private
56 40
14.83 10.85
0.88 2.59
9.33
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
14.93 11.04
0.437 2.999
6.21
Table 12 reveals that teachers, especially the male teachers of public sector
universities were found highly satisfied with the facet of policies at 0.05 level of significance.
The teachers with 31 to 50 years of age of public universities with master’s degree were
found more satisfied than those of private universities. Signicant difference was found
between teachers of public and private sector universities on others variables, i.e. teachers
with 30 years of age having M. Phil and Ph.D. degrees on policies and practices facet of job
satisfaction.
73
Table 13: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet company policies and practices.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
14.67 9.96
1.28 2.84
16.450
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
14.85 11.36
.707 1.80
9.35
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
15.00 11.40
.000 3.06
3.71
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
14.74 10.03
1.10 2.84
17.70
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
15.00 11.40
.00 2.22
8.39
Table 13 shows that lecturers of public sector universities with 10 years experience
were found more satisfied on policies and practices component of job satisfaction as
compared to those of private universities as the t-value was found much greater than the table
value at 0.05 level of significance. Lecturers and assistan professors of public sector
universities with 11 to 20 years of experience were found more satisfied as compare to those
of private universities on this component. Associate professors were found more satisfied
than those of private universities but the difference was though significant but not so high as
in other cases.
74
Table 14: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet social
status.
Respondents Universities N Mean std T
Teachers Public Private 209 160
22.13 18.75
1.89 4.61
8.71
Male teachers Public Private 208 164
22.13 18.78
1.89 4.56
8.83
Female teachers
Public Private 45 33
22.02 18.51
2.20 3.50
5.06
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private 52 27
21.98 18.66
2.20 3.26
4.73
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private 145 125
22.13 18.50
1.84 3.34
10.80
Teachers having master
degree Public Private
108 98
22.05 18.39
2.05 3.51
9.00
Teachers having M.Phil
degree Public Private
56 40
21.96 19.78
2.09 6.83
1.87
Teachers having Ph.D
degree Public Private
47 22
22.55 18.36
1.01 3.82
5.05
Table 14 shows that significant difference between views of public and private sector
university teachers, especially the male teachers of more than 30 years of age was found in
favour of public universities as the the t-value was found much greater than the table value at
0.05 level of significance. Difference between teachers of public and private universities with
M. Phil degrees was significant lower than other cases as the t-value was found 1.87 which is
greater than the table value at 0.05 level.
75
Table 15: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet social status.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
22.02 18.43
2.14 3.38
9.84
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
22.22 20.70
1.38 8.21
0.885
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
22.60 18.30
.51 3.59
3.74
Professor Public Private
15 11
22.66 18.09
1.29 4.72
3.13
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
22.00 18.45
1.99 3.44
10.34
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
22.53 18.51
1.47 2.79
6.70
Table 15 shows significance of difference between the opinions of public and private
university lecturers, associate professors, with 10 years experience and those with 11 to 20
years experience in favour of public sector teachers as the t-value in these cases was found
greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance. While t-value in case of assistant
professors was found less than the table value therefore no significant difference was found
between the opinion of respondents from public and private universities on the facet of social
status of job satisfaction.
76
Table 16: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction working
condition facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
14.41 12.01
1.85 4.91
5.86
Male teachers Public Private
208 164
14.44 11.99
1.80 4.86
0.009
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
14.48 11.12
2.04 2.39
6.68
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
14.01 11.59
2.46 2.20
4.29
Teachers of 31 to 50 years
age
Public Private
145 125
14.47 12.12
1.68 5.44
4.92
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
14.50 11.16
1.54 4.60
6.16
Teachers having
M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
13.91 12.12
2.65 1.68
3.75
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
14.82 13.63
1.02 8.72
0.640
Table 16 reflects significant difference between perceptions of public and private
university female teachers of 30 or less than 30 years of age along with teachers of 31 to 50
years age having master’s and M.Phil degrees on working conditions of job satisfaction in
favour of teachers from public sector universities as the t-value was found greater than the
table value at 0.05 level of significance. No significant difference was found between the
opinion of male teachers, especially with Ph. D degrees from public and private universities
on working conditions facet of job satisfaction as the t-value was found less than the table
value at 0.05 level.
77
Table 17: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet working condition.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
14.17 11.72
2.17 4.27
5.87
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
14.83 11.76
1.007 1.61
8.70
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
14.90 15.90
.31 12.74
0.243
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
14.40 11.70
1.77 4.12
6.87
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
14.25 13.18
2.50 7.92
0.677
Table 17 shows significant difference was found between the opinions of public and
private university lecturers and assistant professors with 10 years of experience in favour of
those from public sector universities as the t-value in these cases was found greater than the
table value at 0.05 level of significance. No significant difference was found between the
opinion of associate professors of public and private universities, especially with more than
10 years experience as the t-vale in these cases was found less than the table value on
working conditions facet of job satisfaction.
78
Table 18: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction compensation
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
14.65 10.23
1.20 2.65
19.58
Male teachers Public Private
208 114
14.66 10.26
1.19 2.63
19.81
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
14.71 8.87
1.14 2.40
12.89
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
14.36 10.25
1.62 2.42
7.92
Teachers of 31 to 50 years
age
Public Private
145 125
14.68 10.30
1.12 2.63
17.29
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
14.98 9.96
1.36 2.65
15.45
Teachers having M.Phil
degree
Public Private
56 40
14.55 10.72
1.26 2.58
8.66
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
14.93 10.59
.43 2.78
7.26
Table 18 shows significant difference between the views of public and private sector
university male and female teachers with any length of service and with any degree in favour
teachers from public sector universities on compensation facet of job satisfaction as the t-
value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance which means that
teachers from public sector universities were found more satisfied on compensation facet of
job satisfaction as compared to those from private universities.
79
Table 19: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet compensation.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
14.49 9.95
1.44 2.65
16.45
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
14.91 11.20
.44 1.93
9.47
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
15.00 11.40
.00 2.50
4.54
Professor Public Private
15 11
50.00 10.27
.00 3.52
4.44
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
14.61 10.06
1.27 2.60
18.07
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
14.82 11.11
.77 2.18
2.32
Table 19 shows that there was significant difference between the opinion of lecturers
and assistant professors of public and private universities with 10 years experience on
compensation component of job satisfaction as the t-value was found greater than the table
value on 0.05 level of significance. The difference was also found significant between the
responses of associate professors and professors with longer experience. Hence, the teachers
of all categories of public sector universities were found more satisfied on compensation
facet of job satisfaction as compared to those from private sector universities.
80
Table 20: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet security.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 159
21.83 17.57
1.88 3.44
14.06
Male teachers Public Private
208 163
21.87 17.62
1.86 3.42
14.24
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
21.68 17.03
2.33 3.15
7.16
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
21.40 17.11
2.46 4.08
5.00
Teachers of 31-50 years
age
Public Private
145 124
21.84 17.72
1.68 3.30
12.53
Teachers with master degree
Public Private
108 97
21.75 17.27
1.86 3.34
11.65
Teachers with M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
21.39 18.20
2.17 3.03
5.68
Teachers with Ph.D degree
Public Private
47 22
22.59 17.81
1.24 4.51
4.88
Table 20 shows that significant difference was found between views of public and
private university teachers, especially of male teachers of 31 to 50 age group with master’s
degree as the t-value was found greater than the table value on 0.05 level of significance. The
teachers of public sector universities were found more satisfied on the component of security
of job satisfaction as compared to those from private sector universities. The difference
between responses of the teachers of 30 years of age with M. Phil and Ph. D. degrees of
public and private university male and female teachers was also found significant.
81
Table 21: Comparison between demographic variables of designation and experience on job
satisfaction facet security.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 115
21.56 17.28
2.09 3.27
12.10
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
22.08 18.84
1.30 2.33
6.43
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
22.80 17.90
.63 4.04
3.78
Professor Public Private
15 11
22.93 17.90
1.09 5.88
2.79
10 years experience
Public Private
167 126
21.57 17.48
2.07 3.29
12.22
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
22.17 18.25
2.37 3.77
4.62
Table 21 shows that difference between the responses of lecturers of public sector
universities and private sector universities was found significant in favour of public sector
university lecturers with 10 years experience as the t–value was found much greater than the
table value at 0.05 level of significance. The difference between the responses of assistant
professors, associate professors and professors with 11-20 years experience from the public
and private sector universities was also found significant as the t-value was found greater
than the table value at 0.05 level. The teachers from public sector universities were found
more satisfied on security component of job satisfaction.
82
Table 22: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet
recognition.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
21.86 18.67
2.66 4.77
7.58
Male teachers Public Private
208 164
21.87 18.71
2.67 4.73
7.64
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
21.45 20.03
2.72 8.47
1.08
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
21.67 18.81
3.03 3.24
3.87
Teachers of 31 to 50 years
age
Public Private
145 125
21.78 18.69
2.63 6.05
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
21.91 18.68
2.49 5.50
5.33
Teachers having M.Phil
degree
Public Private
56 40
21.05 18.62
3.51 3.37
3.39
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
22.76 19.00
1.16 3.40
5.04
Table 22 shows significant difference between the views of public and private
university teachers, especially the male teachers was found as the t-value was greater than the
table value at 0.05 level of significance. There was no significant difference between female
teachers of both sector universities on recognition dimension of job satisfaction irrespective
of their qualification. Male teachers of all categories with different qualification and variety
of experience from public sector universities were being properly recognized as compared to
those from private sector universities as far as job satisfaction is concerned.
83
Table 23: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet recognition.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
21.51 18.53
3.05 5.29
5.57
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
22.28 19.32
1.67 2.26
6.38
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
23.00 18.40
.47 4.37
3.30
Professor Public Private
15 11
23.13 19.72
.99 3.00
4.12
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
21.73 18.59
2.40 5.21
6.29
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
22.35 18.81
3.59 2.49
4.23
Table 23 shows comparison between perceptions of public and private university
lectures, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors with 10 or less than 10
years experience and those with 11-20 years experience. The difference between their views
was found significant as the t-vale was greater than the table value at 0.05 level of
significance. It means the teachers of all categories from public sector universities were found
more satisfied on recognition facet of job satisfaction as compared to those from private
sector universities.
84
Table 24: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet
achievement.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.29 19.07
4 2.74
0.60
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.34 19.03
2.72 2.52
1.026
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
19.08 9.36
6.94 3.49
0.208
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.98 19.62
2.82 2.18
1.04
Teachers of 31 to 50 years
age
Public Private
145 125
19.33 18.96
4.46 2.85
0.781
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
18.93 18.92
3.04 2.73
0.016
Teachers having M.Phil
degree
Public Private
56 40
18.83 19.12
2.57 2.55
0.537
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
20.70 19.72
6.36 3.20
0.677
Table 24 reflects that no significant difference was found between the views of male
and female teachers public and private universities with different qualification and experience
as the t-vale in all cases was found less than the table value at 0.05 level of significance on
achievement facet of job satisfaction. It means that teachers of each gender from public and
private universities were not satisfied as far as the achievement facet of job satisfaction is
concerned.
85
Table 25: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet achievement.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19 18.81
2.87 2.72
0.555
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.93 19.64
2.83 1.75
1.13
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
24.60 18.40
12.83 4.356
1.44
Professor Public Private
15 11
19.53 21.54
1.80 1.43
3.04
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
18.25 18.25
2.88 2.85
0.001
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
21.96 19.88
7.86 1.67
1.34
Table 25 shows no significant difference was found between the opinion of lecturers,
assistant professors and associate professors with different experience as the t-value in all
above mentioned cases was found less than the table value at 0.05 level on the achievement
facet of job satisfaction. But in case of professors of both sector universities was found
significant in favour of professors from private sector universities as the t-value was found
greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance. It means that professors of private
universities were more satisfied on achievement component of job satisfaction.
86
Table 26: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction activity facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.29 19.65
3.35 8.63
0.558
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.42 19.85
2.50 9.46
0.56
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
18.7 19
5.40 3.52
0.268
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 57
18.7 18.9
.87 3.16
0.304
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
19.36 19.88
3.56 9.65
0.596
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
18.97 18.92
2.87 10.86
0.882
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 46
19.23 19.25
4.66 2.36
0.022
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
20.08 19.50
2.17 3.05
0.912
Table 26 shows comparison between the views of public and private university male
and female teachers of different age groups having master’s, M. Phil and Ph. D. degrees. No
significant difference was found between the views of public and private sector university
male and female teachers as the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05
level of significance on activity facet of job satisfaction.
87
Table 27: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet Activity.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
18.92 19.76
2.75 10.02
0.940
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.67 19.40
4.95 1.80
0.266
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.90 18.80
1.28 3.99
1.58
Professor Public Private
15 11
20.20 20.45
1.85 2.50
0.298
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.01 19.59
3.56 9.65
0.723
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
20.35 19.85
1.92 1.63
1.047
Table 27 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on activity facet of job satisfaction.
88
Table 28: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction Authority
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.46 18.50
5.89 4.37
1.094
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.93 18.97
6.34 2.79
0.903
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
17.80 19.18
3.38 8.00
1.040
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.75 17.81
2.78 2.77
1.41
Teachers of 31 to 50 years
age
Public Private
145 125
19.24 19.12
5.25 4.62
0.200
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
19.68 18.58
7.77 5.21
1.184
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
18.57 19.37
2.97 2.50
1.930
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
20.08 19.27
2.12 2.64
1.36
Table 28 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages as the t-value in each case was
found less than table value at 0.05 level on authority facet of job satisfaction.
89
Table 29: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet Authority.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.51 18.65
7.00 7.89
1.116
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.02 19.72
3.02 2.18
1.026
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.70 19.20
1.70 2.48
1.57
Professor Public Private
15 11
19.53 18.90
2.29 3.33
0.567
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
18.96 18.78
5.03 4.65
0.308
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
20.35 19.44
2.29 2.57
1.38
Table 29 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on authority facet of job satisfaction.
90
Table 30: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction co worker
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.72 19.10
6.56 3.26
1.095
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
20.02 19.00
6.45 3.26
1.63
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
18.57 19.69
6.87 3.39
0.861
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
20.26 19.70
8.14 2.86
0.349
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
19.56 19.05
6.19 3.44
0.817
Teachers having master
degree
Public Private
108 98
20.15 19.48
7.74 3.21
0.794
Teachers having M.Phil
degree
Public Private
56 40
19.17 18.82
6.40 3.02
0.324
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
19.38 18.18
2.39 4.07
1.538
Table 30 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on co-worker facet of
job satisfaction.
91
Table 31: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet co-worker.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.86 19.41
7.02 3.21
0.643
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.46 18.52
6.67 2.53
0.685
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
9.80 8.50
1.61 3.43
1.08
Professor Public Private
19 11
12.63 10.36
0.626 0.518
0.24
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.52 19.25
6.55 3.21
0.425
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
21.0 18.11
8.02 3.80
1.69
Table 31 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on co-worker facet of job satisfaction.
92
Table 32: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction creativity
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.49 18.95
4.22 2.58
1.41
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.60 19.05
4.50 2.40
1.25
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
19.04 18.69
2.96 3.22
0.492
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.96 18.51
3.14 2.67
0.623
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
19.59 19.08
4.64 2.59
1.097
Teachers having
master degree
Public Private
108 98
19.35 18.67
2.88 2.57
1.77
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
19.35 19.12
6.77 2.36
0.028
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
20.02 20.00
2.49 2.91
0.031
Table 32 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on ceativity dimension
of job satisfaction. But in case of teachers with master’s degree the difference was found
significant as the t-value was found greater than the table value at 0.05 level.
93
Table 33: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet creativity.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.60 18.76
4.73 1.78
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.81 19.12
3.26 2.10
0.422
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.30 19.20
2.05 3.85
0.796
Professor Public Private
15 11
20.33 21.09
2.52 2.02
0.819
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.27 18.22
4.56 2.64
1.439
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
20.57 20.14
2.15 1.74
0.799
Table 33 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on creativity dimension of job satisfaction. But in case
lecturers the difference was found significant as the t-vale was found greater than the table
value at 0.05 level.
94
Table 34: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction responsibility
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-vale
Teachers Public Private
209 160
18.96 18.86
3.51 2.49
0.318
Male teachers
Public Private
164 129
19.21 18.89
3.56 2.45
0.875
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
17.97 18.96
3.09 2.73
1.46
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.46 19.18
2.95 2.13
1.128
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
18.97 18.91
3.75 2.60
0.168
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 98
18.63 18.90
2.88 2.41
0.722
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
19.00 18.62
5.05 2.59
0.430
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
19.72 19.45
2.26 2.87
0.421
Table 34 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on responsibility
dimension of job satisfaction.
95
Table 35: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet responsibility.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
47 22
19.72 19.45
2.26 2.87
0.015
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.91 19.00
2.42 2.10
0.143
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.20 18.20
1.75 3.88
1.485
Professor Public Private
15 11
20.13 21.00
2.29 1.18
1.142
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
18.69 18.75
3.71 2.53
0.160
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
19.82 19.18
2.37 2.42
0.981
Table 35 reflects that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on responsibility dimension of job satisfaction.
96
Table 36: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction variety facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.32 19.41
5.00 5.80
0.155
Male teachers
Public Private
164 129
19.20 19.67
4.10 6.24
0.770
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
19.71 18.45
7.43 3.28
0.907
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.38 20.66
3.20 9.79
1.537
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
19.64 19.16
5.61 4.72
0.755
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 98
18.86 19.41
3.11 7.01
0.748
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
20.23 18.85
8.33 2.41
1.018
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
19.38 20.45
2.46 3.97
1.37
Table 36 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on variety dimension of
job satisfaction.
97
Table 37: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction variety facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.28 19.30
4.90 6.51
0.024
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.12 19.16
6.12 2.07
0.03
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.20 19.10
1.98 2.99
0.967
Professor Public Private
15 11
19.80 21.54
2.42 4.94
1.191
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.02 19.23
4.59 6.31
0.334
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
21.14 20.29
7.45 3.25
0.542
Table 37 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on variety component of job satisfaction.
98
Table 38: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction supervision
technical facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 159
18.27 18.45
3.96 4.49
0.411
Male teachers
Public Private
164 128
18.20 18.36
3.43 4.54
0.356
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
18.48 19.03
5.47 4.31
0.470
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
17.38 19.05
3.34 3.08
1.992
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 124
18.53 18.34
4.22 4.72
0.350
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
145 124
18.53 18.34
4.22 4.72
0.350
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
17.75 18.70
3.46 3.45
1.327
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
19.06 17.31
2.27 4.35
2.191
Table 38 reflects that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on supervision technical
dimension of job satisfaction. The difference was found significant between the opinion of
teachers of public and private universities of 30 years of age in favour of private sector. But
in case of teachers with Ph. D, degrees the difference was found significant in favour of
public sector university teachers.
99
Table 39: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction supervision technical facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 115
17.90 18.60
4.39 4.80
1.198
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
19.02 18.48
3.11 2.14
0.777
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
19.70 17.20
2.31 4.51
1.55
Professor Public Private
15 11
18.26 18.45
2.37 5.29
0.122
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
18.08 18.53
4.07 4.75
0.870
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
18.92 17.96
3.48 3.41
1.038
Table 39 indicates that there was no significant difference between the views of
public and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors
and professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on supervision technical component of job satisfaction.
100
Table 40: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction supervision
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 159
17.59 17.86
3.71 4.95
0.608
Male teachers
Public Private
164 128
17.52 17.77
3.69 5.00
0.489
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
17.73 18.45
3.71 4.60
0.765
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
17.15 18.96
3.89 3.99
1.94
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 124
17.61 17.57
3.62 5.23
0.076
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 97
17.33 17.41
3.81 3.75
0.149
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
17.19 19.45
3.92 7.027
2.004
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
18.61 16.81
3.02 4.73
1.908
Table 40 reflects that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on supervision
dimension of job satisfaction. The difference was found significant between the opinion of
teachers of public and private universities of 30 years of age with M. Phil degrees in favour
of private sector. But in case of teachers with Ph. D, degrees the difference was found
significant in favour of public sector university teachers.
101
Table 41: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet supervision.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 115
17.28 17.65
3.93 3.80
0.750
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.00 19.08
3.20 8.45
0.794
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
18.20 16.30
3.93 4.47
1.008
Professor Public Private
15 11
18.40 18.72
3.11 5.33
0.197
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
17.31 17.93
3.61 5.22
1.210
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
18.21 17.14
4.03 3.66
1.025
Table 41 indicates that there was no significant difference between the views of
public and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors
and professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on supervision component of job satisfaction.
102
Table 42: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction social service
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-values
Teachers Public Private
209 160
20.17 20.38
2.53 2.70
0.476
Male teachers
Public Private
164 129
20.24 20.22
2.37 5.14
0.042
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
19.86 21.06
3.02 7.43
0.975
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
19.94 21.88
2.60 8.04
1.598
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
20.11 20.20
2.42 5.16
0.186
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
108 98
19.94 20.24
2.58 5.56
0.505
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
19.85 19.60
2.60 2.55
0.481
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
21.10 22.50
2.04 9.23
0.991
Table 42 reflects that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on social service
dimension of job satisfaction.
103
Table 43: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet social service.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.97 20.17
2.61 5.21
0.398
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
20.26 19.36
2.25 2.15
1.65
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
21.00 20.10
1.63 1.19
1.40
Professor Public Private
15 11
21.20 25.36
2.73 12.72
1.238
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.88 20.11
2.52 5.03
0.499
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
21.21 21.77
1.81 8.45
0.344
Table 43 indicates that there was no significant difference between the views of
public and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors
and professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on social service component of job satisfaction. But
difference between the views of public and private university assistant professors was found
significant in favour of public sector teachers.
104
Table 44: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction moral values
facet.
Respondents Universities N Mean std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.49 19.10
2.41 3.03
1.362
Male teachers
Public Private
164 129
19.50 19.23
2.36 2.78
0.908
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
19.40 18.69
2.57 3.83
0.968
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
19.51 19.44
2.30 0.124
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
19.55 19.11
2.32 2.92
1.39
Teachers having master degree
Public Private
145 125
19.55 19.11
2.32 2.92
1.39
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
18.94 19.10
2.44 3.07
0.273
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
19.38 20.36
2.76 2.83
1.36
Table 44 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on moral values
dimension of job satisfaction.
105
Table 45: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet moral values.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
19.70 18.87
2.25 3.06
2.47
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.97 19.00
2.56 2.43
0.033
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
19.60 19.10
2.22 3.34
0.394
Professor Public Private
15 11
19.33 22.09
3.24 2.02
2.48
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
19.49 18.88
2.32 3.12
1.93
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
19.89 19.96
2.24 1.74
0.129
Table 45 reveals that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on moral values component of job satisfaction. The
opinions of lecturers from private sector and professors public sector significantly differ from
their counterparts. Significant difference was found between the teachers with 10 years
experience of public and private universities. This difference was found in favour public
sector university teachers.
106
Table 46: Comparison between demographic variables on job satisfaction facet
independence.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Teachers Public Private
209 160
19.11 19.25
3.29 2.68
0.457
Male teachers Public Private
164 129
19.25 19.34
3.25 2.70
0.278
Female teachers
Public Private
45 33
18.48 19.00
3.28 2.57
0.742
Teachers of 30 years age
Public Private
52 27
18.84 18.92
2.68 2.68
0.125
Teachers of 31 to 50 years age
Public Private
145 125
18.95 18.37
3.01 2.71
1.207
Teachers having
master degree
Public Private
108 98
19.12 19.00
2.76 2.47
0.328
Teachers having M.Phil degree
Public Private
56 40
18.00 19.45
3.19 3.10
2.220
Teachers having Ph.D
degree
Public Private
47 22
20.46 20.13
3.97 2.76
0.353
Table 46 shows that no significant difference was found between the views of public
and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications as
the t-value in each case was found less than table value at 0.05 level on independance
dimension of job satisfaction. But in case of teachers having M.Phil degrees the difference
was found significant in favour of private sector university teachers.
107
Table 47: Comparison between demographic variables of designation, experience on job
satisfaction facet independence.
Respondents Universities N Mean Std t-value
Lecturers Public Private
137 116
18.85 18.99
2.88 2.51
0.400
Assistant professor
Public Private
49 25
18.67 19.92
3.10 2.82
1.68
Associate professor
Public Private
10 10
20.70 19.00
156 2.98
1.59
Professor Public Private
15 11
22.00 19.09
5.80 3.14
0.470
10 years experience
Public Private
167 127
18.73 19.10
2.87 2.73
1.103
11-20 years experience
Public Private
28 27
19.96 20.22
2.96 2.18
0.366
Table 47 shows that there was no significant difference between the views of public
and private university teachers i.e. lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and
professors with variety of experience as the t-value in each case was found less than table
value at 0.05 level of significance on independance component of job satisfaction. But in case
of assistan professors the difference was found significant in favour of private universities.
108
DISCUSSION
Job satisfaction of employees is pre-requisite for the success of any organization. This
is human resources which keep up the organizational activities. Without human resource an
organization cannot flourish. Human resource works like fuel for any organization. Now job
satisfaction is necessary for getting and retaining employees in an organization. This study
focuses on comparison of job satisfaction of teachers in public and private university in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Researcher assessed job satisfaction of teachers using
Minnesota job satisfaction questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised of 20 domains. These
domains were ability utilization, achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company
policies and practices, compensation, co-workers, creativity, independence, moral values,
recognition, responsibility, security, social service, social status, supervision of human
relation, supervision-technical, variety, working conditions. The comparison of views of
public and private university teachers were made on these twenty domains through selected
demographic variables. The selected demographic variables were gender, designation,
experience, age,nature of university and education level. The findings of the study are
discussed below:
No significant difference was reported between male teachers of public and private
universities, female teachers of public and private universities on job satisfaction facet of
ability utilization. This study is in line with the findings with the study of (Taskeen Ali &
Ireena akhter, 2009). They found in their study that there was no significant difference
between the views of male and female faculty members in Bangladesh. The insignificant
difference may be because of the following reasons:
1. Equal and similar physical facilities are provided to male and female teachers in both
public and private universities.
2. Favourable working environment is provided in both public and private universities.
109
3. Teachers in both public and private universities are equally respected by society.
4. Teachers in both universities possess equal prestige.
Experience wise no significant difference was reported between public and private
universities’ teachers. This study contradicted (Gesinde and Adejumo, 2012) study.
(Gesinde and Adejumo, 2012) found significant difference between teachers with less and
above years’ work experience.
Insignificant difference was reported between the views of public and private
universities’ teachers of different experience categories. The findings of the study contradict
the study of (Sudalaiyandi et al, 2011). They stated that there is an experience wise difference
in the level of satisfaction on the work load given to the teaching staff of the self-financing
engineering colleges. This study is not in line with the study of(Ghafoor, 2012), reported that
the experienced faculty members were more satisfied than those who were less experienced.
The insignificant difference between public and private university teachers may be because of
the following reasons:
1. Both public and private universities’ teachers may have equal salary packages.
2. They may have equal promotion of opportunities.
3. Both public and private universities’ teachers may have similar professional
development opportunities.
4. They may enjoy similar social status in society.
No significant difference was reported between perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by designation. This study is not in line with the study of(Celia, 2012).
(Celia 2012) revealed that there was a significant difference between professors and other
designations. Whereas Assistant Professors and Associate Professors had similar level of job
satisfaction with respect to these dimensions; the professors had a lower level of satisfaction
when compared to other faculty members as they were highly qualified and well experienced
110
and would expect much more from the college with respect to the dimensions. This study is
in line with the study of(Shakir, 2007), who found that most of the doctors in all ranks and
with different qualifications were not found satisfied with their job due to lack of proper
service structure and low salaries.
Significant difference was found between the perceptions of public male and private
male universities teachers regarding job satisfaction facets advancement and company
policies and practices. The significant difference may be because of the following reasons:
1. There may be significant difference between salaries of male teachers of public and
private universities.
2. There may be difference between recognition of services which the male teachers
render in public and private universities.
3. There may be difference between professional development of male teachers from
public and private universities.
4. There may be difference between advancement opportunities of male teachers in
public and private universities.
Significant difference was found between the perceptions of public female and private
female universities teachers regarding job satisfaction facets advancement and company
policies and practices. The significant difference between female private and female
public universities teachers may be because of the following reasons:
1. There may be difference between recognition of services which female teachers
render in public and private universities.
2. There may be significant difference between salaries of female teachers of public and
private universities.
111
3. There may be difference between advancement opportunities for female teachers in
public and private universities.
4. There may be difference between professional development of female teachers from
public and private universities.
Significant difference was found between the perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables regarding job satisfaction facet advancement.
This study is not in line with the study of (Malik, 2011). (Malik, 2011) stated that the
demographic characteristics were negligibly related to overall job satisfaction. This study
confirms the results of the study of (Eyupoglu and Saner, 2009). (Eyupoglu and Saner, 2009)
reported that job dimension advancement, compensation, co-workers and variety were found
to be statistically significant with academic rank revealing that academic rank affects the
satisfaction associated with 4 out of the 20 facets of the academics’ job examined. (Toker,
2011) found that social status was ranked as the highest and compensation was ranked as the
lowest of the examined items.
Significant difference was found between the perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables regarding job satisfaction dimension
company policies and practices. This study is in line with the study of( Iqbal et al ,2011).
(Iqbal et al ,2011) reported that the findings show that the secondary school teachers were
slightly satisfied with the basic eight dimensions (out of twenty) of a job i.e. ability
utilization, advancement, education policies, independence, compensation, creativity,
recognition and working condition.
Significant difference was observed between the opinions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different categories of age,
112
academic qualifications regarding job satisfaction facets social status while insignificant
difference is observed between the views of public and private universities’ teachers by
demographic variables, i.e different categories of experience and designation on job
satisfaction dimension social status. The study confirms the findings of the study of( Ghafoor,
2012).(Ghafoor, 2012) reported that the experienced faculty members were more satisfied
than less experienced. It was also found age and job satisfaction was not positively correlated
with each other’s. The academic staffs from private sector universities were comparatively
more satisfied with overall job satisfaction than that of public sector universities.(Adio, 2010)
revealed that there was a significant relationship between gender, age, marital status, number
of years spent in the library and career commitment of librarians in federal university libraries
in Nigeria.(Ali &Akhter, 2009) found that the faculty members were overall satisfied with
their present condition, except the factors like- training facilities, and some physical facilities
and distribution of courses.
Significant difference was reported between the perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different age categories,
different experience categories, academic qualifications and designations regarding job
satisfaction facet working environment. This study contradicts findings of the study of (Bilal,
2012).(Bilal, 2012) found Positive relationship between working conditions, rewards and
leadership and administrative support and job satisfaction of knowledge workers.(Gill &
Ahmad, 2009) reported that job satisfactions were positively and significantly related to pay
& benefits, relationship with co-workers. And were positively but insignificantly related with
working condition.
Significant difference is reported between the perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different age categories,
different experience categories, academic qualifications and designations regarding job
113
satisfaction facet compensation. The findings of this study are in line with the study of(
Eyupoglu & Saner,2010). (Eyupoglu & Saner, 2010) found that the job facets advancement,
compensation, co-workers and variety were found to be statistically significant with academic
rank indicating that academic rank affects the satisfaction associated with 4 out of the 20
facets of the academics’ job examined. (Mangi et al,2011) recommended to the management
of the universities to focus on the job motivators (Advancement, Recognition) hygiene
(Interpersonal/Administration relationship, Policies, Compensation) of the non-PhD faculty
for the improvement of job satisfaction and performance.
Significant difference is reported between the perceptions of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different age categories,
different experience categories, academic qualifications and designations regarding job
satisfaction facet job security. The study is in line with the study of( Khalid et al ,2012).
(Khalid et al, 2012) reported that academicians in public sector universities were found more
satisfied with co-worker’s behavior and job security. The reasons of this significant
difference may be the following:
1. The job of private universities teachers is not secure.
2. The statutes regarding job security of private universities are weak.
3. Tenure Track System in public sector universities does not ensure job security of
teachers.
4. Contract policy of Public Sector University is considered a hinder in regularization of
faculty members.
Insignificant difference is reported between the views of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different age categories,
different experience categories, academic qualifications and designations regarding job
satisfaction facet achievement. This study is in line with the study of( Ghazi et al,
114
2010).(Ghazi et al, 2010) reported that university teachers were generally satisfied with their
jobs. However teachers were neutral with dimensions: working conditions, organizational
policies and practices, recognition, supervision technical and promotion opportunities. The
teachers were satisfied with work variety, creativity, moral values, compensation, work itself,
colleagues’ cooperation, responsibility, ability utilization, authority, activity, social status, job
security, achievement and students’ interaction. The findings of this study confirm the
findings of( Ghazi, 2004).(Ghazi, 2004) reported that the head teachers were found to be
"Satisfied". Moral Values and Activity ranked the highest in the hierarchy respectively which
indicates that the head teachers were "Very Satisfied" with these dimensions of the job.
Insignificant difference is reported between the views of public and private
universities’ teachers by demographic variables, i-e, male, female, different age categories,
different experience categories, academic qualifications and designations regarding job
satisfaction facet co-worker. The findings of this study contradict the study of (Khalid et al,
2012).( Khalid et al, 2012) reported that academicians in public sector universities were
found more satisfied with co-worker’s behavior and job security. (Abdullah et al, 2009)
found a significant relationship between job satisfaction and gender, whereby the male
teachers were generally more satisfied than female teachers. The graduate teachers were more
satisfied than non-graduate teachers. The higher ranking teachers were more satisfied than the
ordinary teachers while the older teachers were more satisfied than their younger
counterparts. (Crossman & Abou-Zaki, 2003) reported that job satisfaction is not independent
in all job facets and that satisfaction with one facet might lead to satisfaction with another.
115
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
Teachers are the pillars of the society, who help students to grow to shoulder
the responsibility of taking their nation ahead of others. Teachers’ satisfaction with
workplace is the heart of the study. If a teacher is satisfied with his/her job, then he/she will
deliver his/her contributions in appropriate way. The major objectives of the study were: (1)
to know difference between the views of public and private university teachers regarding
their job satisfaction; (2) to differentiate the perceptions of public and private university
teachers by academic qualification on their job satisfaction; (3) to explore difference between
the opinions of public and private university teachers by age about job satisfaction; (4) to find
out difference between the views of public and private university teachers by experience
regarding job satisfaction; and (5) to explore the difference between the perceptions of public
and private university teachers by gender about job satisfaction.
The population of the study consisted of all teachers of public and private universities
in Khyber Pakhtun Khwa. The researcher randomly selected 14 (7 public and 7 private) out
of 25 universities in Khyber Pakthunkhwa. The sample size was 420 respondents.
Questionnaire was used for data collection. Mean, standard deviation and t-test was applied
for data analysis.
116
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions were drawn on the basis of the findings of the study:
1. All male and female teachers of different age groups with variety of
experience and qualifications of public and private universities were equally
satisfied with their job.
2. The teachers from public and private university were found equal good on
ability utilization facet of job satisfaction.
3. The teachers of all categories of public sector universities were found more
satisfied with their job as compared to those from private sector universities
and they had much desire for advancement in their profession.
4. The lecturers of public sector universities were found more satisfied as
compared to those of private sector universities on the facet of advancement of
job satisfaction. Similarly the public sector university teachers with 10 years
experience were found more satisfied as compared to those from private
sector.
5. The teachers, especially the male teachers of public sector universities were
found highly satisfied with the facet of policies of job satisfaction. They had
more academic freedom in designing policies and practices as compared to
those from private sector universities.
6. The lecturers of public sector universities with 10 years experience were found
more satisfied on policies and practices component of job satisfaction as
compared to those of private universities.
117
7. The teachers of public sector universities enjoyed better social status as
compared to those from private sector universities, therefore, they were more
satisfied with their job. This was true with the teachers of all categories
irrespective of their length of service.
8. Working conditions were found better in public sector universities but the
teachers with Ph. D. degrees were found equally satisfied with their job on
working conditions component of job satisfaction.
9. The teachers of all categories of public sector universities were found more
satisfied on compensation facet of job satisfaction as compared to those from
private sector universities.
10. The teachers from public sector universities were found more satisfied on
security component of job satisfaction. The teachers from public sector
universities enjoyed better job security as compared to those from private
sector universities.
11. The teachers of all categories from public sector universities were found more
satisfied on recognition facet of job satisfaction as compared to those from
private sector universities.
12. The professors of private universities were more satisfied on their achievement
component of job satisfaction.
13. All the teachers from both sector were found on equal foot as far as activity
facet of job satisfaction is concerned.
14. Public and private university teachers of all cetegories with variety of
experience which means that the teachers of both gender and all categories of
public and private universities were equally satisfied in excersizing, freely or
118
not freely, their authority in academic matters.
15. The teachers of all categories from public and private universities were
equally satisfied, good or bad, as co-worker in their academic environment.
16. The lecturers of public sector universities were found more satisfied with their
creative attitude as compared to those in private sector universities.
17. Public and private university teachers of both genders and of all ages with
different qualifications were found equally satisfied with their jobs on being
responsible.
18. The teachers of all categories from public and private universities with variety
of experience were equally satisfied in using variety of ideas and experiences,
good or bad, in their academic career.
19. Lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and professors with variety
of experience were found equally satisfied with their job in providing technical
supervision. The teachers of all categories with variety of experience were
equally satisfied with their job in providing supervision.
20. The teachers of both genders and of all ages with different qualifications from
public and private universities were found equally satisfied with their job on
providing social service to their clients.
21. The opinions of lecturers from private sector and professors of public sector
significantly differ from their counterparts.
119
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of findings and conclusions drawn, following recommendations
are made:
1. HEC may not register Private Universities until and unless staff of the University is
offered pay package equivalent to the scales of the Public University teachers.
2. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan may make rules and regulations for Private
Universities to guarantee job security to the teaching faculty.
3. HEC may establish a cell which shall work for the welfare of teachers in both public
and private sector universities.
4. HEC may devise a mechanism through which universities of both sectors could share
and benefit from their research explorations to develop the teaching faculty .
5. HEC may develop a service structure for the promotion of teachers in Private
Universities. The teachers may be given promotion according to the criteria made by
the HEC.
6. The Private Universities may devise a mechanism of recognition of good and
excellent work of their teachers by awards and rewards.
7. The Professors in Public Universities do not perform according to the requirement and
expectations. They may be compelled to achieve the targets in a specific time period
otherwise, action be taken against them.
8. Proposal and suggestions of Junior teachers regarding academic affairs in Private
Universities may be accommodated as they have 1st hand knowledge.
120
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annierah M, U.,Kamarulzaman, A., Maeda ,L.,K.& Datu ,A.,S.,O., U.(2013) Work
Performance and Job Satisfaction among Teachers. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science. 3.
Aristovnik, A., & Jaklič, K. (2013). Job satisfaction of older workers as a factor of promoting
labour market participation in the EU: the case of Slovenia. Rev. Soc. Polite, 20(2),
123-148.
Abdul S., Allah N., and Shadiullah. K. (2011). The contextual impacts on job satisfaction of
employees in the developing states like Pakistan. Universal Journal of Education and
General Studies.5, 136-145.
Asif Iq.Saeed Akhtar. (2011) Job Satisfaction of Secondary School Teachers. Abasyn Journal
of Social Sciences. 5, 1.
Agne, J. & Berita, S. (2011). Motivators of Teacher Job Satisfaction ISSN 1392 – socialniai
mokslai. 2011. Nr. 2 (72).
121
Agne Juozaitiene & Berita Simonaitiene(2011). Motivators of Teacher Job
Satisfaction http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01. .71.2. ss 541 cited on 08/07/2013.
Al Zubi, H.A. (2010). A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and
Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12): 102-109.
Akhtar, M. S. (2010). Job satisfaction and customer focus: A survey of elementary school
teachers. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co.
Artz, B. (2010). Fringe Benefits and Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Manpower, 31(6): 626-644.
Ayaz Ul Haq,Asad. I .K, Syed N,Raza. S & Kashif-ur-R(2010). Organizational Environment
and its Impact on Turnover Intensions in Education Sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal
of Business Management 3(2): 118-122.
Al Zubi, H.A. (2010).A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12): 102-109.
Akhtar, M. S. (2010). Job satisfaction and customer focus: A survey of elementary school
teachers. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co.
122
Artz, B., 2010. Fringe Benefits and Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Manpower, 31(6): 626-644.
Ayaz Ul Haq, Asad. I .K, Syed N,Raza. S and Kashif-ur-R(2010). Organizational
Environment and its Impact on Turnover Intensions in Education Sector of
Pakistan.Asian Journal of Business Management 3(2): 118-122, 2011 ISSN: 2041-
8752.
Ashraf,T.(2010). Organizational Behaviour. Shah, S.Y.(editor).Learning Package on
Participatory adult learning Documentation and Information Networking (Paladin).
Documentation, Dissemination and Networking. Jawaharlal Nehru University
Publication. Retrieved 17 February, 2011, from
http://www.unesco.org/education/aladin/paldin/pdf/course02/intro.pdf .
Ahmad, H. et al (2010).Relationship between Job Satisfaction, Job Performance Attitude
towards Work and Organizational Commitment: European Journal of Social Sciences
(2)18.
Abdullah, M.M, Uli, J.(2009). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers Jurnal
Kemanusiaan bil.
123
Astrauskaitė,M.(2009).Mokytojų darbe patiriamo kolegų priekabiavimo ryšys su
pasitenkinimu darbu (pilotinis tyrimas). Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas, Studentų
darbai, 1, 97–112.
Aziz, R. (2009). Attitude and awareness of different communities towards reproductive
health education in Pakistan. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, Institute of Education and
Research, Gomal University.
Alzaidi AM (2008). Secondary School Head Teachers,Job Satisfaction in Saudi Arabia: The
result of a mixed methods approach, Arecls, 2008, 5, 161-185.
Alexandrov.A. Babakus.E., & Yavas.U, (2007).The Effects of Perceived Management
Concern for Frontline Employees and Customers on Turnover Intentions: Moderating
Role of Employment Status. Journal of Service Research, 9:356 – 371.
Al-Mutairi, A. (2005). Job satisfaction among government school head teachers at Hafr
Albatan, in Saudi Arabia and its relation to their effective performance. Dissertation
(MA). Jordan University.
124
Alagbari, A. (2003). Job satisfaction among a sample of general education head teachers
inthe Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Gulf and Arabic island studies, 29,
169-197.
Aswathappa k. (2003). Human recourse & management ,244 - 245.Al-Mashaan, Associations
among job satisfaction, pessimism, and psychosomati symptoms of employees in the
government sector. Psychological Reports, 93, 17−25.
Alam, S. M. Ikhtiar (2003).Job Satisfaction: A case Study of Female Workers in Different
Garment Factories in Dhaka City. Mimeo Presented to Faculty of Social Science,
Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka.
Alagbari, A. (2002). Job satisfaction among a sample of general education head teachers in
Eastern region of Saudi Arabia. Journal of golf and Arabic island studies, 29, 169-197
Aloryali, N. (2002).Job satisfaction among governmental general education head teachers in
Northern region of Saudi Arabia, field study. Dissertation (MA). King Saud
University.
125
Athanasios D. Koustelios, (2001) Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek
teachers. International Journal of Educational Managemen , 15(7),354 - 358.
Alonazi, A.( 2001). Relationship between a degree of Occupational performance and job
satisfaction among secondary school head teachers in the northern region of Saudi
Arabia. Dissertation (MA). Umm Al-Qura University.
Al-owaidi, K.(2001). A Study of job satisfaction and commitment among vocational
trainers in Saudi Arabia: the case of Tabuk and Hail. PhD thesis. Exeter University.
Aşan, Ö. (2001). Yönetim ve organizasyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Akhtar, M. S. (2000). Job satisfaction and customer focus: A survey of elementary school
teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Michigan, USA.
Atakl, A. (1999). Öğretmenlerde stres ve iş memnuniyeti. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 256, 7-13.
Akkutay, Ü. (1996). Milli Eğitimde yabancı uzman raporları. Ankara: Avni Akyol Vakfı
Kültür ve Eğitim Yayınlar.
126
Akhtar, M. S. (1994).Job satisfaction in primary teachers. Bulletin of Education and
Research, 6 (1), 87-99.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: a longitudinal analysis of
links to new comers commitment and role orientation. The Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 847-58.
Bozkurt, O & Bozkurt, I. (2008). Tatminini etkileyen isletme içi faktörlerin egitim
sektörü açısından degerlendirilmesine yönelik bir alan arastırması. Dogus
Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9 (1), 1-18.
Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2009). Politics and workplace: an empirical examination of
the relationship between perceived organizational politics and work performance.
South Asian Journal of Management, 16 (1), 44-62.
Bareket, R. L. (2009). Free to flee: A study of motivational factors impacting teachers in
Santa Clara County, California, who teach in low- and high socioeconomic schools
within districts that contain both. Dissertation abstract international, 69 (7), 2598.
127
Bal, P. M., Lange, A. H. D., Jansen, P. G. W., Velde, M. E. G. V. D., & Ashforth, B. E.(
2008).Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a
moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72: 143–158.
Bashir S, Ramay MI (2008). Determinants of Organizational Commitment
A Study of Information Technology Professionals in Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah
University, Islamabad. Institute of behavioral and applied management.
Brown, Forde (2008).Changes in HRM and job satisfaction, 1998–2004: evidence from the
Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Human Resource Management Journal,
18 (2), 97–195.
Bozkurt, O & Bozkurt, I. (2008 ).Iş tatminini etkileyen işletme içi faktörlerin eğitimsektörü
açısından değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir alan araştırması. DoğuşÜniversitesi
Dergisi,9(1) 1-18.
Bodla, M.A., & Naeem, B. (2008a). What Satisfies Pharmaceutical Salesforce in Pakistan?
The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, & Change Management.
128
Bodla, M.A., & Naeem, B. (2008b).Relevance of Herzberg’s Theory to Pharmaceutical Sales
force in Pakistan. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, & Change
Management.
Browne,L.(2007). State of the teaching profession. Professionally speaking, 49-58.
Boehman, J. (2006). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment among student
affairs professionals, unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC (ProQuest Digital Dissertations).
Brown, D. (2005). Job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational and religious
commitment among workers at Northern Caribbean University. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Beehr, T.A. and S. Glazer, (2005).Organizational role stress. A Handbook of Work Stress.
Sage Publications, London.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005).Adaptation-Level
Theory, Opponent Process Theory, and Dispositions: An Integrated Approach to the
Stability of Job Satisfaction. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044-1053.
129
Buitendach, J., & De Witte, H., (2005).Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction
and affective organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a Parastatal.
South Africa Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 27-37.
Bodla MA, Naeem B (2004). Motivator and hygiene factors explaining overall job
satisfaction among pharmaceutical sales representatives. Director COMSATS
University, Sahiwal Campus, Pakistan, MS Scholar, Department of Management
Sciences, COMSATS University, Lahore Campus,Pakistan.
Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2003). Understanding and motivating health care employees:
Integrating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of Nursing
Management, 11, 315-320.
Bogler, R. (2002). The influence of leadership style on teacher jobsatisfaction. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37 (5) 662-674.
Boselie, J.P.E.F. & Wiele, A. (2002). High performance work systems: ‘Research on
Researchʼ and the Stability of Factors over Time. Erasmus Research Institute of
Management (ERIM), Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved 16 February, 2011,
from http://ideas.repec.org/p/dgr/eureri/2002191.html.
130
Barrows D, Wesson T (2001). A comparative analysis among public versus private sector
professionals. The public sector Innovation Journal.5(1), Available online at
(http://www.innovation.cc) accessed on july 25th, 2013.
Brunetti, G. J. (2001). Why do they teach. A study of job satisfaction among long-term high
school teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28 (3), 49-74.
Beer, J., & J. Beer (1992). Burnout and stress, depression and self-esteem of teachers.
Psychological Reports. 71: 1331-6.
Bilgin, A. Ö. (1986). A Study on the Relative Contributions of Motivators and Hygienes to
Overall Job Satisfaction .
Chughtai, AA. & Zafar, S (2009). Antecedents and consequences of organizational
commitment among Pakistani university teachers. Applied H. R. M. Research,
11(1):39-64.
Chughtai AA, Zafar S (2009).Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment
among Pakistani university teachers.
131
Chughtai A Zafar S (2009). Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment
among Pakistani university teachers.Applied H. R. M. Research, 11(1):39-64.
Croosman, A., and Harris, P. (2006). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers.
Educational Management and Leadership, 34(1), 29-46.
Canipe, J.S. (2006). Relationships among trust, organizational commitment, perceived
organizational support, and turnover intentions, unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A
critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press Applied
H. R. M. Research, 11(1):39-64.
Cardenas, R.A., D.A. Major &K.H. Bernas.(2004).Exploring work and family distractions:
antecedents and outcomes. Int. J. Stress Manage. 11: 346-365.
Crossman A, Abou-Zaki B (2003). Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese
banking staff. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 368-376. Available at:
ww.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ ViewContentServlet? Accessed on 24th, July, 2013.
132
Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2001). Canadian Teachers’ Federation workplace survey in
Jun. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.ctf-fce.ca/en/press/2001/Workplc.htm
Çetinkanat, C. (2000). Örgütlerde güdülenme ve iş doyumu. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Clark, A. E (1998). Measures of job satisfaction - What makes a good job? Evidence from
OECD countries , Labour Market and Social Policy .
Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1313-1317.
Çelik, V. (1997). Scholar Culture and Management. Ankara: Pegem Yayınevi.
Clark, A. E. & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public
Economics, 61, 359 – 81.
Chapman,D.W. & Lowther,M.A. (1982). Teachers’ satisfaction with teaching. Journal of
Educational Research. 75,241-247.
133
Dombrovskis,V.Guseva, S.,&Murasovs,V.(2011).Motivation to work and the syndrome of
professional burnout among teachers in Latvia, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 98-106.
Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job Satisfaction
and Motivation: An Empirical Study from Pakistan. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5 (2): 159-167
Dilmaç, B. ve Ekşi, H. (2007). Değerler eğitiminde temel tartışmalar ve temel yaklaşımlar.
İlköğretmen Eğitimci Dergisi, 14, 21-29.
Dilmaç, B. , Kulaksızoğlu, A. ve Ekşi H. (2007). An examination of the humane values
education program on a group of science high school students. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice. 7 (3). 1221–1261.
DeVaney AS, Chen ZS. (2003). Job satisfaction of recent Graduates in Financial Services.
chen Purdu University, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(www.bls.gov) Accessed on 28, july,2013.
DeVaney, AS & Chen, ZS. (2003). Job satisfaction of recent Graduates in Financial Services.
chen Purdu University, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(www.bls.gov) Accessed on 17, June 2013. 11.
134
DE Nobile, J.( 2003). Organisational communication,job satisfaction and occupational stress
in Catholic primary schools. Thesis (PhD). University of New South Wales.
Dodeen, H.A., Ibrahim, A. A., Emad, M, (2003). Attitude of Pre Service Teachers towards
Persons with Disability: Prediction for the Success of Inclusion. College Student
Journal, 37.(4) 515.
D.B. Rao (2003). Job Satisfaction of School Teachers. books.google.com/books/about/Job
Satisfaction of School... Cited on 29th july2013.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ effort to empower teachers:
Effects onteacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing
House,2000, 73 (6), 349-353.
Day, C. (2000). Stories of Change and Professional Development:The Costs of Commitment.
In C. Day and A. Fernadez and T. Hauge and J. Moller (Eds.), The Life and Work of
Teachers: International Perspectives in Changing Times ,109-129 . Falmer Press,
London.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M (2000). Principals’ effort to empower teachers: Effects onteacher
motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House,
2000, 73(6), 349-353.
135
Decker, F. H. (1997). Occupational and nonoccupational factors in job satisfaction and
psychological distress among nurses. Research in Nursing and Health, 20(5), 453-564.
Daft, R.L. (1997). Management. USA: The Dryden Pres.
Ercan .,Y, Bülent., D(2011)An Investigation of Teachers Values and Job Satisfaction.
Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 302-310, 2011.
Eikhof, D. R., Warhurst, C., & Haunschild, A. (2007). Introduction what work?
What life? What balance? Journal of Employee Relations, 29 (4): 325 – 333.
Ennis, E. and C. McConville, (2004). Stable characteristics of mood seasonality. Pers. Indiv.
Differ., 36: 1305-1315.
Ebmeier, H. (2003).How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment:an
investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2003, 18(2), 110-
41.
136
Embich, J.L.( 2001). The relationship of secondary special education teacher’s roles and
factors that lead to professional burnout. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ., 16: 161-170.
Ellickson MC, Logsdon K (2001). Determinants of job satisfaction of Municipal Government
employees. State and Local government review. 33(3):173-184. Available at:
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/ publications/slgr/2001/3b.pdf. Accessed on 28, July, 2013.
Ellickson, MC. & Logsdon, K (2001). Determinants of job satisfaction of Municipal
Government employees. State and Local government Review. 33(3):173-184.
Available at: http://www.cviog.uga.edu/ publications/slgr/2001/3b.pdf. Accessed on
17, June, 2013.
Faraz Alam (2011). Impact of wages on employees satisfaction www.scribd.com/.../impact-
of-wages-on-employee satisfaction retrived on16 july 2013.
Flanagan, N. A. (2006). Testing the relationship between job stress and satisfaction in
correctional nurses. Nursing Research, 55(5), 316-32.
137
Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour at work. NY: Taylor and Francis group.
FaragherA, E., CASS, M. &Copper, C.( 2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and
health: a meta-analysis. Occup environ med, 62, 105-112.
Frye M. B. (2004). Equity-based compensation for employees: firm performance and
determinants, The Journal of Financial Research, 27(1), 31-54.
Frame, P., & Hartog, M. (2003).From rhetoric to reality. Into the swamp of ethical\practice:
implementing work-life balance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12 (4): 358-
367.
Filak, V. F. & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student Psychological Need Satisfaction and College
Teacher-Course Evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, (3) 235-247.
Farnham, D. & S. Horton (1996), Managing people in the public services, Houndmills:
MacMillan.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
138
Fruth, M., Bredson, P. & Kasten, K. (1982). Commitment to teaching: Teachers
responses to organisational incentives. Report from the program on student
diversity and school processes. Madison: Wisconsin Centre for Educational
Research.
Gesinde, M. A. & Adejumo O G. (2012). Effects of age and work experience on job
satisfaction of primary school teachers: Implications for areas counseling.
International Journal of Asian Science. 2(3) .
Ghafoor, M. M. (2012). Role of Demographic Characteristics on Job Satisfaction. Journal of
Psychology and Business, 6(1), 30-45.
Gupta, M., Pasrija, P., & Bansal, K. K. (2012). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers
in relation to some demographic variables: A comparative study, Journal of
Education and Research for Sustainable Development,1(1), 8-17.
Ghulam, A., A., Imran, H., Delphine, L., and Aziz ,J.(2011) Integrating affect with
Psychological Contract Breach (PCB) and work attitudes: a comparative analysis of
university teachers of Pakistan & USA. Institut d’Administration des Entreprises,
Clos Guiot, Puyricard, CS 30063 13089 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2, France.
139
Günbay (2001). lköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin iş doyumu. Kuram veUygulamada Eğitim
Bilimleri,1 (2).
Gupta K. Shashi & Joshi Rosy(2008). Human Recourse Management,20.9 - 20.17.
Getahun S, Sim B, Hummer D (2007). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
Among Probation and Parole Officers: A Case Study. 13(5).
http://www.picj.org/docs/issue5. Accessed on 28 th, july, 2013.
Gelsema, T. I., Van Der Doef, M., Maes, S., Janssen, M., Akerboom, S., & Vergoeven, C.
(2006).A longitudinal study of job stress in the nursing profession: Causes and
consequences. Journal of Nursing Management, 14(4), 289-299.
Gündüz, M.(2005). Ahlak sosyolojisi. Ankara: Anı Yayınevi.
Greenberg, J. (2005). Managing Behavior in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood.
Gupta, M., & Jain, R. (2003). Job satisfaction of nursery school teachers working in Delhi,
Indian Psychological Review, 61, 49-56.
140
Griffin R W (2002). Management. 5th, ed. AITBS Publishers & Distributors, India.
Günbayı. İ. (2000). Örgütlerde iş doyumu ve güdüleme. Ankara:Özen Yayıncılık. Guest
Lecture Series. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan,
Nigeria.
Hull, J. W. (2004). Filling in the gaps: Understanding the root causes of the “teacher
shortage”can lead to solutions that work. Threshold, 8-15. Retrieved July 29,
2004,from www.ciconline.org.
Harris & Associates. (2001). The American teacher: Key elements of quality schools.
New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Higgins, E. T. (1999b). When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The
second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal.
Hisrich, R & M Lerner (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs. Journal of business
venturing, 12(4), 315-339.
http://www.paked.net/higher_education/list_of_universities.htm, cited on 11.01.2013.
141
Hammer, M & J. Champy (1993), Reengeneering the corporation. A Manifesto for Business
Revolution. New York: HarperCollins.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319-340 .
Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., and Miles, E. (1987).A new perspective on equity theory: The
Equity Sensitivity Construct. Academy of Management Review. 12(2) 232-234.
HackmanOldham1976, G. R. Oldham (1976). Motivation through design of work".
Organizational behaviour and human performance 16 (2): 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hertzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing
Company.
Herzberg, Frederick, Mousner, Bernard, Synderman &Barbara (1959) .The motivation to
work. New York, Wiley.
142
Herzberg, Frederick (1959). The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools.Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Izgar, H. (2000). Okul Yöneticilerinin Tükenmişlik Düzeyleri (Bornout) Nedenleri ve Bazı
Etken Faktörlere Göre İncelenmesi. Yayınlanmış doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Işıklar, A. (2000).Okul yöneticilerinin tükenmişlik düzeyleri, nedenleri ve bazı
etkenfaktörlere göre incelenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, Konya.
Job Satisfaction Model for retention ( 2008). Posted by Justin Field cited on date 09/08/2012
talentedapps.wordpress.com/2008/.../job-satisfaction-model-for-reten.
Jamieson, B. (2006). State of the teaching profession 2006: Back in the day. Retrieved
October10,2006,from
http://www.oct.ca/publications/professionally_speaking/september_2006/survey.asp
143
Jacobson, L. (2005). States scrutinize teacher working conditions. Education Week,24(29),1-
17.
Jiunn, Lian-Woei; & Wu, Hsin-Kuan (2005). job stress, job satisfaction and life satisfaction
between managerial and technical is personnel.Department of Information
Management.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,
151–188.
Jucevičienė, P. (1996). Organizacijos elgsena. Kaunas: Technologija.
Kristen.F,Lorraine. F and David. H(2012). Predicting Teacher Anxiety, Depression, and Job
Satisfaction. Journal of teaching and learning,vol.8 no.1.
Khalid L. Muhammad, N., S., Nadeem, S. &M., S. (2011). Job Satisfaction among Public and
Private College Teachers of District Faisalabad, Pakistan: A Comparative Analysis.
Interdisciplinary Journal of contemporary research in business. Institute of
Interdisciplinary Business Research 235( 3), 8.
144
Kaur, G., & Sidana, J. J. (2011). Job satisfaction of college teachers of Punjab with respect to
area, gender and type of institution, Edutracks, 10(11), 27-35.
Kuchinke KP, Ardichvili A, Borchert M, Rozanski A. (2009). The meaning of working
among professional employees in Germany, Poland and Russia. Journal of european
industrial training. 33(2): 104-124.
Kumar, M. S., Udayasuriyan, G., & Vimala, B. (2008).Motivation among the employees of a
public sector concern, Journal of Community Guidance and Research, 25 (3), 340-
351.
K.K.Jain, Fauzia, J., Vinita M., & Naveen, G. (2007). Job Satisfaction as Related to
Organisational Climate and Occupational Stress. A Case Study of Indian Oil",
International Review of Business Research Papers, 3,( 5), 193-208.
Khan N.V. (2006 ), Personal management, 132 - 134.
Khan A (2006). Performance Appraisal’s Relation with Productivity and Job Satisfaction.
Journal of Managerial Sciences, I(2)114.
145
Karen S. Myers Giacometti ( 2005). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and Retention of
Beginning Teachers. Blacksburg, Virginia.
Karen S. Myers Giacometti ( 2005). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and retention of
beginning teachers. Blacksburg, Virginia .retrieved in June 30,2013..
Kumar, S., & Patnaik, P. S. (2004).A study of organizational commitment, attitude towards
work and job satisfaction of post-graduate teachers, Journal of Educational Research
and Extension, 41(2), 1-15.
Karrasch, A.I. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Military
Psychology, 15(3),225-36.
Kara, A. (2001).Orta öğretim kurumlarında okul problemlerinin rehber öğretmenlerin iş
doyumu etkisi ve ders öğretmenleriyle rehber öğretmenlerinokul problemlerine bakış
açısındaki farklar.Selçuk Üniversitesi SosyalBilimler Enstitüsü Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Konya.
Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek teachers. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 354–358.
146
Koh WL, 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.
Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (1999). Love em or lose: Getting good people to stay. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc.
Kuhn, B. J. (1980). Teacher personality type and iob satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida.
Kalleberg, A.L. (1977). Work values and job rewards.Theory of job satisfaction. American
Sociological Review 42: 124–143.
Kovack, K.A. (1977) Organisation size, job satisfaction, absenteeism and
turnover. Washington D.C. University Press of America.
Lisa, A. (2008). Factors that affect job satisfaction among teachers in two selected
Milwaukee charter schools.20.master thesis, Capella University. School of Human
Services.
147
Laurinaitytė, A. (2008). Gimnazijos mokytojų ir kolegijos dėstytojų pasitenkinimas darbu ir
jo ryšys su asmenybės bruožais. Magistro darbas. Psichologija.
Luthans F (2005). Organizational Behavior. 10th, ed. McGraw-Hill, International ed. USA
Lee BH, Jamil M (2003).An empirical study of organizational commitment : A multi- level
approach,. J. Behav. and Appl. Manage. 4(3):176.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S. M. (2001).The impact of job
satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a
national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233–251.
Locke, 1976 cited in Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: affect in
the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307,28.
Latham, A. (1998). Teacher satisfaction. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 82-83.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
148
Locke,E .A. (1976).T he naturea ndc auseso job satisfactionI.n M.D. Donnette (ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organiiational psychology. Chicago.
Madhu Gupta and Manju Gehlawat (2013)Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation of
Secondary School Teachers in Relation to Some Demographic Variables: A
Comparative Study.
Muhammad. E. Malik , Samina. N, Basharat .N, Rizwan Q.D. (2010). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of university teachers in public sector of Pakistan
International Journal of Business and Management .5, 6.
Malik, M. I., Zaheer, A., Khan, M.A., and Ahmad, M. (2010). Developing and
Testing a Model of Burnout at Work and Turnover Intensions among Doctors in
Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10): 234-247.
Malik, M.I., Ahmad, M., Saif, M.I. and Safwan, M.N. (2010).Relationship of
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Layoff Survivor’s Productivity.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(7): 200-211.
149
Maike, I. P., Timothy B. B.,(2010). Helping Faculty Find Work-Life Balance: The Path
Toward Family-Friendly.(1st ed.)14. Jossey Bass.Retreived from Google Books as on
04-11-
2013mhttp://books.google.com.pk/books?id=_ltwl_KWziUC&printsec=frontcover&d
q=work+life+balance+books&hl=en#v=onepage&q=work%20life%20balance&f=fals
e.
Mehmet G., S., & Mustafa, Y., Eryaman(2008)A comparative analysis of job satisfaction
levels of public and private school teachers.Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulam, 4 (2): 189-
212 Journal of Theory and Practice in Education Articles /Makaleler ISSN: 1304-
9496
Moynihan DP, Pandey SK (2007). Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation
Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment.
University of Wisconsin–Madison, The University of Kansas, Lawrence.
McIntryre, F. (2006). Ontario grads stay with teaching. Professionally Speaking, June, 47-50.
Morgan, M., O’Leary, M. (2004).A study of factors associated with the job satisfaction of
beginning teachers. The Irish Journal of Education, 35, 73-86.
150
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C.E. (2003). Social causes of psychological distress (2nd ed).
Hawthorne,NY: Aldine De Gruyther.
Mearns, J. and J.E. Cain,( 2003). Relationships between teachers’ occupational stress and
their burnout and distress: Roles of coping and negative mood regulation
expectancies. Anxiety, Stress Copin, 16: 71-82.
Mulinge MM (2000). Toward an Explanation of Cross-Sector Differences in Job satisfaction
and Organizational Attachment Among Agricultural Technicians in Kenya. African
Sociological Review .4(1), 55-73.
Moorman, R.H. (1993) The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations 6, 759–776.
Minibaş, J. (1990). Özel ve devlet okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin iş tatminidüzeyi ve
bu düzeyin frustrasyon karşısında gösterilen tepki ve agresyon yönüile ilişkisi.
Istanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Unpublished M.A.Thesis, Istanbul.
McCormick, E.J.,& Ilgen, D.R. (1985). Industrial and organizational psychology. (8th ed.).
London: Allen & Unwin.
151
Maslow, A. H. (1970a). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1970b). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin.
(Original work published 1964).
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.
Nadeem Malik (2011). Study on job satisfaction factor of faculty members at university of
Balochistan. International Journal of Academic Research 3(1). 267
Nadeem, M.S., & Abbas, Q. (2009). The Impact of Work Life Conflict on Job
Satisfactions of Employees in Pakistan. International Journalof Business and
Management, 4 (5): 63-83.
National Education Association. (2004). Attracting and keeping quality teachers. Retrieved
July 29, 2004, from www.nea.org/teachershortage.html.
Nguyen, A. N., Taylor, J., & Bradley, S. (2003). Relative pay and job satisfaction: some new
evidence.http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1382 , 01 (43).
152
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge
to America’s children. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
Naceur J., & Fook, C. Y. (2001).Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers in Selangor,
Malaysia. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 11(¾), 72–90.
Nanhua University (2008) No.32,Chung Keng Li, Dalin Chia-Yi , 62248, Taiwan , R.O.C.
and Department of Information Management, National Central University, No.300,
Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 32001, Taiwan, R.O.C. Available online
at (http://ibacnet.org) accessed on 20th,July, 2013
Nerison HA (1999). A Descriptive Study of Job Satisfaction among vocational rehabilitation
counselors in a Midwestern State. A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree with a major in Vocational
Rehabilitation. www.uwstout.edu/lib/thesis/1999/1999nerison.pdf.
Oplatka, I. and Mimon, R., 2008. Women principals’ conceptions of job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction: an alternative view. International Journal of Leadership in
Education,11(2), 135-153.
153
Ongori H (2007) A review of the literature on employee turnover. African Journal of
Business Management pp. 049-054, June 2007 Available online
http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm Department of Management, University of
Botswana, Botswana.
Özel, O. B. (2007). 2005-2006 istatistikleri. http://www.ozdebir.org.tr/
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK
universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30 (12), 1210-1232.
Ololube, N. P. (2006).Teacher job satisfaction and motivation for school effectiveness: An
assessment. Retrieved from ERIC. (496539).
Ololube, N. P. (2005). Benchmarking the Motivational Competencies of Academically
Qualified Teachers and Professionally Qualified Teachers in Nigerian Secondary
Schools. The African Symposium, 5, (3),17-37.
Ololube, N. P. (2004). Professionalism: An Institutional Approach to Teachers’ Job
Effectiveness in Nigerian Schools. Paper Presented at the Seventh International
LlinE Conference, 23-25.
154
Opkara, J. O. (2002).“The impact of salary differential on managerial job satisfaction: A
study of the gender gap and its implications for management education and practice in
a developing economy. The journal of Business in Developing Nations, 65-92.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching
research and administration and management? International Journal of Sustainable
Higher Education, 1(2), 124–136.
Olajide, A. (2000).Getting the best out of the employees in a developing economy. A
Personnel Psychology
Özday, N. (1990). Resmi ve Özel Liselerde Çalışan Öğretmenlerin ş Tatmini ve
şStreslerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi”,stanbul Üniversitesi Yayınlanmamış Doktora
Tezi, istanbul.
Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., & Battistelli,A. (2011). The Effects of Work-Family
Conflict and Community Embeddedness on Employee Satisfaction.
Petersitzke, M. 2009. Supervisor Psychological Contract Management. Frankfurt: Gabler.
155
Perry JL, Debra M, Paarlberg L (2006) Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era:
The Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration Review. 66(4).
Pagojutė, I. (2006).Konsultantų pasitenkinimo darbu didinimas organizacijoje. Studentų
mokslinė konferencija Jaunasis mokslininkas. Retrieved 11 May, 2010, from
http://www.lzuu.lt/jaunasis_mokslininkas/smk_2006/kaimo_pletra/Pagojute%20Inga.
Park, S., Henkin, A.B., & Egley, R. (2005).Teacher team commitment, teamwork, and trust:
exploring associations, Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462-79
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2003). Promoting teacher quality. Retrieved January 18,
2003 from www.ers.org/spectrum/win02a/htm.
Pattanayak B (2002). Human resource management prentice –Hall of India Private Limited
New Delhi-110001.
Peretomode, V. F. (1991). Educational Administration: Applied Concepts and Theoretical
Perspective. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers.
156
Plessman, C. S. (1986). The relationship between personality characteristics and job
satisfaction of secondary marketing education teachers. Dissertation Abstracts
Intemational, 47, 836. University Microfilms. 86-069, 69.
Qammar A, Khan MZ, Siddique M (2006). Impact of Demographics on Organizational
Support and Employee Motivation, Journal of Managerial Sciences, 1(2) Pakistan.
Rajat (2009). A case study on job satisfaction employees. Punjab Technical University,
Jalandhar.
Rybelienė, I. (2007). Mokytojų pasitenkinimo darbu ir subjektyvios psichologinės gerovės
sąsajos. (Magistro baigiamasis darbas, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.
Riemann, F. (2006). Pagrindinės baimės formos. Vilnius: Alma littera.
Rupšienė, L. ir Gustienė, D. (2005). Gimnazijos pedagogų darbo motyvavimas. Pedagogika,
80, 21–28.
Rao Subba P. (2005). Essential of HRM & Industrial Relationships.480 - 482.
157
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. (2003). Organizacinės elgsenos pagrindai. Vilnius: Poligrafija ir informatika.
Rao, B.D. & Sridhar, D. (2003) Job Satisfaciton of School Teachers. New Delhi: Discovery
Publishing house.
Rugman AM, Hogetts RM (2002). International business 3rd edition. www.booksites.net.
Ronit, B. (2001). The Influence of Leadership Style on Teacher Job Satisfaction. Journal of
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, (5), 662-683.
Rocca AD, Kostanski M (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. Melbourne Australia. Available
online at (http://politics.ankara.edu.tr) Accessed on 12th January, 2013
Rout, U. R. (2000). Stress amongst district nurses: A preliminary investigation. Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 9(2), 303-309.
158
Robbins, S. P. (1997) . Organizational behavior. Prentice Hall.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M.( 1994).Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of management journal, 27:
137-152.
Revicki, D. A., Gallery, M. E., Whitley, T. W., & Allison, E. J. (1993). Impact of work
environment characteristics on work-related stress and depression in emergency
medicine residents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 3(4), 273-284.
Rice, R.W., Gentile, D.A. & McFarlin, D.B. (1991). Facet Importance and Job Satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31-39.
Sattar at el ( 2012).In The contextual impacts on job satisfaction of employees in the
developing states like Pakistan. Schematic Diagram of the theme of the paper.
Accessed on 28th July 2013.
Shah.R (2011). Role of Heads of teaching departments in the promotion of communication
.At postgraduate level. Ph.D thesis, Institute of Education and Research, Gomal
University.
159
Sudalaiyandi, S.Nadarajan and Jaidhas, B.R.C. (2011). A Study on the Impact of work load
on the Job Satisfaction of teaching staff in self-financing engineering colleges
recognized by Anna University of technology, Tirunelveli. Research Journal of Social
Sciences and Management, 1, 5.
Saifuddin ZK, Nawaz A (2010). Impacts of demographic variables on job-satisfaction of the
academicians in Universities of NWFP, Pakistan. Bulletin of Research and
Development. 32(1):53-68.
Sattar A, Khan S,Nawaz A (2010). Predictors of job satisfaction: A survey of district
executives in NWFP, Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research. 26(1), 107-
122. (a) Available at: www.gu.edu.pk.
Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010). Psychology and work today : an
introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. p. 71. ISBN 978-0205683581.
Sattar, A, Khan, S. Nawaz, A. (2010). Predictors of job satisfaction: A survey of district
executives in NWFP, Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research. 26(1), 107-
122.
160
Sattar, A. Khan, S., Nawaz, A. & Najibullah (2010) Demographic impacts on the job
satisfaction of the district executive officers in local government of NWFP, Pakistan.
Gomal University Journal of Research (GUJR), 25(2), 85-98.
Saifuddin, Zaman, K. & Nawaz, A. (2010).Impacts of demographic variables on job-
satisfaction of the academicians in Universities of NWFP, Pakistan. Bulletin of
Research & Development, 32(1), 53-68.
Sattar A, Khan S, Nawaz A, Najibullah K (2009)Demographic impacts on the job satisfaction
of the district Executives Officers in Local Government of NWFP, Pakistan.
Available at: www.gu.edu.pk. 25(2): 85-98..
Suazo, M. M. 2009. The mediating role of psychological contract violation on the relations
between psychological contract breach and work-related attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24: 136–160.
Shahu, R., & Gole, S.V. (2008). Effects of Job Stress and Job Satisfaction on
Performance: An Empirical Study; International Journal of Management, 2 (3): 237
Sharaf, E., N. Madan and A. Sharaf,( 2008). Physician job satisfaction in primary care.
Bahrain Med. Bull., 30(2).
161
Shakir, S. Ghazali, A. Shah, A. Zaidi, SA. And Tahir, MH. (2007). Job satisfaction among
doctors working at teaching hospital of Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Sevimli, F., ve Ö.F. İşcan (2005). Bireysel ve iş ortamına ait etkenler açısından iş doyumu.
Ege Akademik Bakış Dergis, 5 (1-2), 55-64
Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R.( 2005). The role of perceived violation
in determining employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12: 24–36.
Sari, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special school
headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and job satisfaction.
Educational Studies, 30(3), 291–306.
Shah S & Jalees T (2004). An analysis of job satisfaction level of faculty members at the
University of Sindh Karachi, Pakistan. Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bahutto Institute of
science and technology. Journal of Independent studies and Research (JISR)
Pakistan. 2(1):26-3
162
Sari, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special school
headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and job satisfaction.
Educational Studies, 30(3), 291–306.
Saari ML, Judge AT (2004). Employee Attitudes and Job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management Winter (2004) 43(4), pp. 395–407 Available online at:
http://www.utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/jobsatisfaction.pdf.
Shah S, Jalees T (2004).An analysis of job satisfaction level of faculty members at the
University of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan. Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bahutto Institute of
science and technology. Journal of Independent studies and Research (JISR)
PAKISTAN. 2(1):26-30. Available online at: http://jisr.szabist.edu.pk/jsp/Journal.
Sokoya, SK (2000). Personal predictors of job satisfaction for the public sector manager:
Implications for Maagement practice and development in a developing economy. The
journal of Business in developing nation. 4(1). Available online at:
(www.ewp.rpi.edu/jbdm) accessed on17,Accessed on 20th June2013.
Sokoya, SK (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 nation. 4(1). Available online at:
(www.ewp.rpi.edu/jbdm) accessed on 17th June, 2013.
163
Siu, O., Spector, P., Cooper, C., & Donald, I. (2001). Age differences in coping and locus of
control: A study of managerial stress in Hong Kong. Psychology and Aging, 16, 707–
710.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Saiyadain MS (1996). Correlates of job satisfaction among Malaysian managers. Published
by Malaysian Management Review31(3), Available online at:
(www.mgr.mim.edu.my/MMR).
Strauman, T. J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive
structures that underlie emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98,
14-22.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I.
Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81(2), 119-145.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). An opponent-process theory of motivation: II.
Cigarette addiction. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 81(2), 158-171.
164
Thompson, E.R.; Phua F.T.T. (2012). A brief index of affective job satisfaction". Group &
Organization Management 37 (3): 275–307. doi:10.1177/1059601111434201.
Tirmizi MA, Malik, MI, Mahmood-ul-Hasan (2008) Measuring satisfaction:an investigation
regarding age, tenure and job satisfaction of white collar employees. Available at:
http://icbm.bangkok.googlepages.com/3.Muhammad.Ali.Tirmizi.PAR.pdf. Accessed
on 29 July, 2013.
Tella A., Ayeni CO., & Popoola SO (2007).Work Motivation, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of Library personnel in Academic and Research Libraries
in OYO State Nigeria. Practice of Library and philosophy. Available
at:www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/. Accessed on 28, July,2013.
Tanya Khan (2007 ) . Teacher job satisfaction and incentive.A case study of Pakistan
(www.docsharepoint.com/.../job.../teacher-job-satisfaction-and-incentive-.. retrieved
on 08 July2013.
Tanrıverdi, H. (2007). Sanayi isletmelerinde çalışanların iş tatminsizliği sorunları üzerine bir
araştırma. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Arastırmalar Dergisi, 3(1), 1-29.
165
Tessema, M. and Soeters, J. (2006).Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing
countries: testing the HRM-performance link in Eritrean civil service, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86-105.
Tsigilies, N. & Zachopoulou, E (2006).Job Satisfaction and Burnout among Greek early
Educators: A comparison between public and private sectors employees. Educational
Research and Review. 1(8), pp. 256-261.
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR/PDF/Pdf2006/Nov/Tsigilis%20et%20al.pdf.
Accessed on 17, June, 2013. 43. Verma AP (2003). Human Resource.
Tsigilies N, Zachopoulou, E (2006). Job Satisfaction and Burnout among Greek early
Educators: A comparison between public and private sectors employees. Educational
Research and Review. 1(8):256-
261.http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR/PDF/Pdf2006/Nov/Tsigilis%20
et%20al.pdf. Accessed on 23rd, March, 2013.
Tasnim, S. (2006).Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary schools in
Bangladesh. Unpublished M. Phil. dissertation, University of Bergen, Norway.
Teachers Job Satisfaction and Motivation for School Effectiveness(2006). An assessment,
cited on 28th July 2013. www.usca.edu/essays/vol182006/ololube.pdf.
166
Turner, B.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2005). Organizational and occupational commitment,
intention to leave, and perceived performance of intercollegiate coaches. Journal of
Sport Management, 19, 193-211. Turkish Secondary School Teachers.
Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, O.D.T.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,
Taylor, H. (2004). Teachers’ job satisfaction rises to highest level in 20 years.
Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S.( 2003). Aren’t there two parties in an employment
relationship.Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement
oncontract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24:
585–608.
Thomas, Alan Berkley (2003): Controversies in Management, pp. 156-159.
Tye, B., O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession.
Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 24-33.
Tye, B., O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession.Phi Delta
167
Kappan, 84(1), 24-33.Titus O. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university
teachers, Women In Management Review, 15 (7), 331 – 343
Ubom, I. U. & Joshua, M. T. (2004). Needs satisfaction variables as predictors of job
satisfaction of employees: Implication for guidance and counseling. Educational
Research Journal, 4. ( 3).
Ubom, I. U. & Joshua, M. T. (2004). Needs Satisfaction Variables as Predictors of Job
Satisfaction of Employees: Implication for Guidance and Counseling. Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 4. No. 3
UNESCO (2003). Status of teachers in Pakistan, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
CulturalOrganization’s. in October
Ural, S. (1999). Epistemolojik Açıdan Değerler ve Ahlak. Dogu Batı, (4), 41.
Vanbaren, J. (2010), The Definition for work motivation. [Online] Available:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6951422_definition- work- motivation.html (June,2012)
168
Verner, J. P. (2009). A descriptive study of educator job satisfaction and valued
communications. Dissertation Abstract International, 69 (7-A), 2558.
Vasilios, D. K. (2009). Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Retrieved from social science
research network. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1361628
Velnampy T.,( 2008) Job Attitude and Employees Performance of Public Sector
Organizations in Jaffna District, Sri Lanka.GITAM Journal of Management, 6, (2),
66-73.
Verma AP (2003). Human Resource Management.S.K. Kataria and Sons ® Publishers and
Distributors 6, Guru Nanaak Market Nai Sarak Delhi-110006. India.
Victor. De Santis, Smantha L.Durst (1996). The American Review of Public Administration
26 (3) 327-343.
Wikipedia (2009). Job-satisfaction. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
job_satisfaction/. Accessed on 12th, February, 2013.
Worrell, T. G. (2004). School psychologists’ job satisfaction: Ten years later. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Blacksburg, Virginia.
169
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194
Woods, A., & Weasmer, J.(2002) Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professional
asactive participants.” ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No.ED6519795.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory:A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Whawo, D. D. (1993). Educational Administration: Planning and Supervision. Benin
City:Jodah Publications.
Walster, E. E. Berscheid and G. W. Walster. (1973).New Directions in Equity
Research.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 151-176.
Yasir, K., and Fawad, H., (2009). Pay and Job Satisfaction:A Comparative Analysis of
Different Pakistani Commercial Banks. Munich Personal RePEc Archive,16059.1-20.
170
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007).The impact of psychological
contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,
60: 64–70.
Ziaulhaq, Mamun, Md., Hossain, Anwar and Islam, Nazrul (2005). A Comparative Study of
Job Satisfaction of the Senior Male and Female Executives in Bangladesh.
Jahangirnagar University Journal of Business Research, 7, 2005, 1-15.
Zembylas, M.,& Papanastasiou, E.(2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus.
Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 357–374.
171
ANNEXURES
Annexure-A
Selected Universities in Khyber Pakhtun Khwa.
Universities/DAI’s chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa
S. No University/DAI Name Main Campus
Location Website Address
1 Gomal University, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.gu.edu.pk/
2 Hazara University, Dodhial,
Mansehra Manshera www.hu.edu.pk/
3 Institute of Management Science,
Peshawar (IMS) Peshawar www.imsciences.edu.pk
4 Kohat University of Science and
Technology, Kohat Kohat www.kust.edu.pk
5 NWFP Uni
versity of Agriculture, Peshawar Peshawar www.aup.edu.pk
6 NWFP University of Engineering.
& Technology, Peshawar Peshawar www.nwfpuetp.edu.pk
7 University of Peshawar, Peshawar Peshawar www.upesh.edu.pk
172
Universities/DAI’s chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa
S. No University/DAI Name Main Campus
Location Website Address
1
CECOS University of Information
Technology and Emerging
Sciences, Peshawar
Peshawar www.cecos.edu.pk
2 City University of Science and
Information Technology, Peshawar Peshawar www.cityuniversity.edu.pk
3 Gandhara University, Peshawar Peshawar www.gandhara.edu.pk
4 Preston University, Kohat Kohat www.preston.edu.pk
5 Qurtaba University of Science and
Information Technology, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.qurtuba.edu.pk
6 Sarhad University of Science and
Information Technology, Peshawar Peshawar www.suit.edu.pk
7 Northern University, Nowshera Nowshera www.northern.edu.pk
173
Annexure-B
174
Annexure-C
175
176
177
178
179
180
Annexure D
A letter of Assurance from the Researcher to the Respondents.
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
NORTHREN UNIVERSITY NOWSHEHRA
Respected Sir/ Madam This survey is being conducted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Ph.D on the “Comparative study on job satisfaction of public and private
university teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan”. As a competent
scholar/researcher I need your assistance. Kindly read carefully and rate each statement
as to what extent it will be suitable for measurement of job satisfaction level. Your
impartial opinion can help me in getting authentic and credible data. All the details and
views will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purpose. I shall be
grateful to you for your assistance and earlier response.
Thanking in anticipation Sincerely Yours Rukhsana Aziz Research Scholar, I.E.R, Northern University Nowshera Cell No. 0333-9950808 E-Mail: [email protected]
181
