Determinants of job satisfaction of faculty in higher education.

AuthorNandan, D. Raja


Much of the research on Job satisfaction during the past several decades is prized by vocational psychologists for both its humanistic and financial value to organizations. Job satisfaction has been considered to be crucial for organizational success. Satisfied employees work with more commitment and exhibit higher retention rates and higher productivity. Higher levels of job satisfaction tend to lead to lower levels of absenteeism, better mental and physical health and represent public relations face of the organization. The data on job satisfaction could be helpful in "evaluating the emotional wellness and mental fitness of employees" (Spector, 1997). The research could also help institutions of higher education to design training programs to address faculty dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction is also understood in terms of its relationship with other key factors of employees like general well being, stress at work, control at work, home-work balance and working conditions (Harrison et. al, 2006).

The Problem

Job satisfaction of faculty in higher education institutions appears to be important as satisfied faculty are more committed and contribute quality inputs in teaching and research thereby enhancing the quality of student output. On the other hand dissatisfied faculty contributes negative inputs impacting in the same direction the quality of education. Hence, job satisfaction of faculty is crucial both to the students and the institution. Earlier studies attempted to study job satisfaction of teachers at different levels considering specific factor(s). Hollon & Gemmill (1976), Lewis and Bierly (1986), white (2001), Fisher (2007) and others studied job satisfaction of faculty by gender and identified factors that help/hinder job satisfaction of women. The review of a host of studies on the subject points to broad classification of factors as working conditions, experience, motivation, gender, age, rewards, etc.


The present study is aimed at analyzing job satisfaction of faculty in higher education institutions in Andhra Pradesh with specific objectives as:

  1. To identify factors impacting job satisfaction

  2. To analyze the relative influence of the factors impacting job satisfaction

  3. To suggest policy initiatives for the institutions to increase job satisfaction

    The Sample

    The present study is confined to faculty relating to management education in Andhra Pradesh State, which has the highest number of institutions offering MBA degree in India. Job satisfaction of such a large number of faculty members is expected to have significant impact on the quality of output and thereby human capital, again affecting the sectors wherever they are employed. The sampling method used is as follows:

  4. Among the universities, one Central university, and three state universities in the public sector (one in each of the regions of Andhra Pradesh) and two deemed to be universities in private sector offering MBA program were selected.

  5. Among the colleges affiliated to state universities-two autonomous colleges (one in Andhra and one in Telangana regions), four affiliated colleges (representing three regions) and two stand alone AICTE institutions (one in Andhra and second in Telangana region) were selected as representative sample for the state of Andhra Pradesh.

  6. All the population in each selected institution were taken and a predesigned questionnaire was canvassed to collect data on job satisfaction.

    The type of institutions and the total population in each selected institution are presented in Table 1. A pre-designed questionnaire was canvassed among the faculty and data were collected during July-December, 2011.

    Several factors may influence job satisfaction and those factors that are quantifiable are considered for the analysis A multiple regression model of the following form is employed to identify the factors that determine job satisfaction.

    The Model


    Y = Job satisfaction

    [X.sub.1] = Motivation

    [X.sub.2] = Work itself

    [X.sub.3] = Working conditions

    [X.sub.4] = Working relations

    [X.sub.5] = Organization's policies & procedures

    [X.sub.6] = Pay & benefits

    [X.sub.7] = Personal growth

    [X.sub.8] = Stress

    [X.sub.9] = Coping strategies

    [X.sub.10] = Teaching performance

    [X.sub.11] = Research performance

    [X.sub.12] = Strength &opportunities

    [X.sub.13] = Weakness & threats

    [e.sub.t] = error term

    [[beta].sub.i] = regression coefficients to be estimated (i = 0, 1 ...)

    Among the above factors, only stress ([X.sub.8]) and weaknesses and threats([X.sub.13]) are expected to exert a negative relationship on job satisfaction, while all the other factors are hypothesized to have a direct relationship with job satisfaction. The analysis has been carried out at the aggregate and disaggregate levels. The disaggregated level analysis has been carried out with respect to qualification, designation, age, experience and institution in which the faculty are working.

    Measurement of the Variables

  7. [X.sub.1]--Overall motivating factors in which seventeen motivators were identified consisting of achievement, recognition and appreciation, responsibility, nature of work, relationships, salary, supervision, working conditions, job security, promotional opportunities, opportunities to use ability fully, working hours and physical conditions, adequate authority and control, institution's status, open communication, participatory decision making and work autonomy. The levels of satisfaction of the faculty are measured on a five point scale from 1 to 5 with scores of 1=fully dissatisfied, 2 =dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied and 5 = highly satisfied. Mean score of all the motivators is used as the magnitude of the motivating factor ([x.sub.1]). The variable is expected to bear a positive relationship.

  8. [X.sub.2]--In measuring the factor work itself, sixteen statements are used ([A.sub.1] to [A.sub.16]) and measured on a 5 point scale as stated already. Mean score is taken for denoting the magnitude of this variable [x.sub.2], which is expected to bear a positive relationship.

  9. [X.sub.3]--Twelve statements are given ([B.sub.1] to [B.sub.12]) and measured on a 5 point scale. Mean score is taken as the magnitude of this variable ([X.sub.3]). The expected sign is positive.

  10. [X.sub.4] is measured with the help of nine statements ([C.sub.1] to [C.sub.9]). Mean score is calculated using 5 point scale and that mean score denotes working relations ([X.sub.4]). The variable is expected to exhibit positive relationship.

  11. Organization's policies & procedures ([X.sub.5]) are measured with the help of twenty nine statements ([D.sub.1] to [D.sub.29]) and aggregated to obtain mean score for the determinant [X.sub.5]. The expected sign could be positive or negative.

  12. Seven statements ([E.sub.1] to [E.sub.7]) are given to measure [X.sub.6] - pay/fringe benefits or appreciation and recognition. Mean score for the variable is obtained from the responses of the faculty on a five point scale. The variable is expected to bear positive relationship.

  13. The factor [X.sub.7]--Personal growth/ promotion opportunities/job security /retirement benefits/gender equality is measured with the help of eight statements ([F.sub.1] to [F.sub.8]). Their mean score is used to denote [X.sub.7]. The variable is expected to bear theoretically positive relationship.

  14. [X.sub.8]--Stress is measured by using thirteen statements ([G.sub.1] to [G.sub.13]). Mean score is used to measure this variable. The sign is expected to be negative.

  15. [X.sub.9]--In measuring coping strategies, thirteen statements ([H.sub.1] to [H.sub.13])...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT