job satisfaction of academics in …arrow.latrobe.edu.au/store/3/5/0/1/1/public/master...2.5...

i

JOB SATISFACTION OF ACADEMICS IN

MALAYSIAN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Submitted by

Khairunneezam Mohd Noor

BSc. (HRD),MSc. (HRD)

A thesis submitted in total fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

La Trobe Business School

Faculty of Business, Economics and Law

La Trobe University

Bundoora, Victoria 3086

Australia

March 2013

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents ……………………………………………………………………...….ii List of figures ……………………………………………………………………..……..xiii List of tables ……………………………………………………………………………..xiv Glossary …………………………………………………………………………………...xx List of appendices ………………………………………………………………………xxi Thesis summary ………………………………………………………………………..xxii Statement of Authorship ……………………………………………………………..xxiii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………….......xxiv

iii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Problem Statement and Significance of the Study 3

1.3 A Brief History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7

1.3.1 History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7

1.3.1.1 Public Higher Educational Institutions 7

1.3.1.2 Private Higher Educational Institutions 8

1.3.1.3 Reforms in the Malaysian Higher Education Sector 9

1.3.1.4 Rating System for Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia 12

1.3.2 The Global Context of Higher Education 13

1.3.2.1 Expansion of Roles of Higher Educational Sector 14

1.3.2.2 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector 15

1.3.2.3 Quality of Higher Educational Sector 17

1.4 Research Aims 18

1.5 Structure of the Thesis 18

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 20

2.2 Drivers and Challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia 22

2.2.1 Key Issues and Challenges in the Malaysian Higher Educational Sector 22

2.2.1.1 Expansion of Malaysian Higher Educational Sector 22

2.2.1.2 Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector 23

2.2.1.3 Corporatisation and Privatisation of Higher Education Institutions 25

2.2.1.4 Improving the Quality of Higher Educational Sector 27

2.2.1.5 Government’s Support for Higher Educational Sector 28

2.2.1.6 Human Capital Development via Higher Educational Sector 29

2.2.1.7 University-Industry Collaboration 30

2.2.1.8 Cultivating Research and Development in Higher Education 30

2.2.2 Summary for Drivers and Challenges of Malaysian Higher Education 32

iv

2.3 Literature Reviews of Job Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction Theories 33

2.3.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction 33

2.3.2 Contemporary Theories of Job Satisfaction 35

2.3.2.1 Content Theories 36

2.3.2.2 Process Theories 40

2.3.3 The Implication of Job Satisfaction Theories on the Theoretical Framework of the

Study 44

2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 45

2.4.1 Organisational Factors 46

2.4.2 Demographic Characteristics 53

2.4.3 Work-Life Balance 56

2.4.4 Summary for the Literature of the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 60

2.5 Consequence of Job Satisfaction: Intention to Leave 61

2.6 Conceptual Framework for the Study 63

2.7 Summary of Research Questions 65

2.8 Conclusion 67

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 68

3.2 Research Paradigm and Design 70

3.3 Mixed Methods Research Design Model 74

3.3.1 Stage 1: Purpose of the Study 75

3.3.2 Stage 2: Conceptual Framework 75

3.3.3 Stage 3: Research Questions 76

3.3.4 Stage 4: Methods 78

3.3.4.1 Ethical Considerations 80

3.3.4.2 Qualitative Study 80

3.3.4.3 Quantitative Study 82

3.3.5 Stage 5: Validity and Trustworthiness 89

3.3.5.1 Validity in Qualitative Methods 89

3.3.5.2 Validity in Quantitative Methods 90

v

3.4 Data Analysis 90

3.4.1 Qualitative Data Analysis 90

3.4.2 Quantitative Data Analysis 91

3.4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis 91

3.4.2.2 Mediation and Moderation Analysis 93

3.5 Background of the Qualitative Study 99

3.6 Background of the Quantitative Study: Demographic Summary 108

3.7 Findings of Normality Tests of Variables in Quantitative Study 111

3.8 Measures of Reliability 112

3.9 Non-response Bias Analysis and Common Method Variance in the Quantitative

Study 113

3.10 Conclusion 116

Chapter 4: SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITIES

POLICIES AND SUPPORT

4.1 Introduction 117

4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with GUPS 118

4.2.1 Satisfied Respondents 119

4.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 121

4.3 Qualitative Study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Satisfaction with GUPS 122

4.3.1 Funds for research and development activities 124

4.3.2 Support for academics to further their studies 126

4.3.3 Policy on university-industry partnership 127

4.3.4 Internationalisation of public universities 130

4.3.5 Expansion of Issues of GUPS in the Qualitative Study into the Quantitative

Study 133

4.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS 133

4.4.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with GUPS 134

4.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS by Gender 137

4.4.3 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age 138

4.4.4 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Tenure 140

4.4.5 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Management

Position 141

vi

4.5 Conclusion 142

Chapter 5: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION: PAY,

PROMOTION, SUPERVISION, FRINGE BENEFITS AND CONTINGENT

REWARDS


5.2 Pay Satisfaction 150

5.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Pay 150

5.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents 151

5.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents 152

5.2.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Pay 154

5.2.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Pay 154

5.2.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender 157

5.2.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Age 158

5.2.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Tenure 159

5.2.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management

Position 160

5.2.3 Summary of Key Findings on Pay Satisfaction 161

5.3 Satisfaction with Promotion 163

5.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Promotion 163

5.3.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Promotion 167

5.3.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Promotion 167

5.3.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Gender 169

5.3.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Age 170

5.3.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Tenure 171

5.3.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Management

Position 172

5.3.3 Summary of Key Findings on Promotion Satisfaction 173

5.4 Supervision Satisfaction 175

5.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Supervision 175

5.4.2 Qualitative study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Supervision 177

5.4.2.1 Fairness and consideration 179

5.4.2.2 Management strategy and leadership 179

5.4.2.3 Consultation and freedom 181

5.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Supervision Satisfaction 184

5.4.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Supervision 184

5.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Gender 186

5.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Age 187

vii

5.4.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Tenure 188

5.4.3.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Management

Position 190

5.4.4 Summary of Key Findings on Supervision Satisfaction 191

5.5 Fringe Benefits 192

5.5.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 192

5.5.2 Quantitative study Findings on Fringe Benefits Satisfaction 195

5.5.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 196

5.5.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by

Gender 198

5.5.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age 198


Tenure 199


Management Position 200

5.5.3 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 201

5.6 Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 202

5.6.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards 202

5.6.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issue on Recognitions 203

5.6.3 Quantitative study Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 204

5.6.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards 204

5.6.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among Academics by

Gender 206


Age 206


Tenure 208



5.6.4 Summary of Key Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 210

5.7 Conclusion 211

Chapter 6: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

OPERATING CONDITIONS, CO-WORKERS, NATURE OF WORK AND

COMMUNICATION


6.2 Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 217

6.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 217

viii

6.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents 218

6.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents 218

6.2.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions 219

6.2.2.1 Facilities at the workplace 221

6.2.2.2 Uninterrupted Working Conditions 222

6.2.2.3 Work responsibilities 223

6.2.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction 225

6.2.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 225

6.2.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among Academics by

Gender 227


Age 228


Tenure 229



6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction 231

6.3 Satisfaction with Co-Workers 232

6.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Co-Workers 233

6.3.1.1 Satisfied Respondents 234

6.3.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 234

6.3.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Pertaining to Co-Workers 234

6.3.2.1 Cooperation among colleagues 237

6.3.2.2 Nature of constructive competition among colleagues 238

6.3.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction 239

6.3.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Co-Workers 240

6.3.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by

Gender 242

6.3.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Age 242


Tenure 244



6.3.4 Summary of Key Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction 245

6.4 Satisfaction with Nature of Work 247

6.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Nature of Work 247

6.4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Regarding to Nature of Work

Satisfaction 249

6.4.2.1 The job itself 251

6.4.2.2 Students’ factor 251

6.4.2.3 The Nature of Teaching and Research 252

ix

6.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Nature of Work Satisfaction 254

6.4.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Nature of Work 254

6.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Nature of Work among Academics by

Gender 256

6.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Nature of Work among Academics by Age 256


Tenure 258



6.4.4 Summary of Key Findings of Nature of Work Satisfaction 260

6.5 Communication 261

6.5.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Communication 261

6.5.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Related to Communication

Satisfaction 262

6.5.2.1 Flow of Communication 265

6.5.2.2Interpretation of communication between academics and administration

Staff 265

6.5.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Communication Satisfaction 266

6.5.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Communication 267

6.5.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by

Gender 268

6.5.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by Age 269


Tenure 270



6.5.4 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Communication 272

6.6 Conclusion 273

Chapter 7: SATISFACTION WITH WORK-LIFE BALANCE


7.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 279

7.2.1 Satisfied Respondents 281

7.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 282

7. 3 Qualitative study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Work-Life Balance 283

7.3.1 Working overtime and on weekends 286

7.3.2 Family support 286

7.3.3 Impacts of work towards life or vice versa 287

x

7.3.4 Expansion of Issues of Work-life Balance Satisfaction in the Qualitative

Study into the Quantitative study 289

7.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 290

7.4.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 290

7.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics by

Gender 293


Age 294


Tenure 296



7.5 Conclusion 297

Chapter 8: DESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS IN THE ONLINE

SURVEY


8.2 Level of Overall Job Satisfaction of Academics in Malaysian

Higher Education Institutions 303

8.2.1Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender 305

8.2.2 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age 306

8.2.3 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Tenure 308

8.2.4 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Management

Position 308

8.3 Level of Intention to Leave of Academics in Malaysian Higher Education

Institutions 309

8.3.1 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender 311

8.3.2 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Age 311

8.3.3 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Tenure 312

8.3.4 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Management

Position 313

8.4 Correlations Findings 313

8.4.1 The relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and

overall job satisfaction 341


intention to leave 341

8.4.3 The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave 342

xi

8.5 Mediation Analysis 342

8.5.1 Hypothesis 8(a) 343

8.5.2 Hypothesis 8(b) 344

8.5.3 Hypothesis 8(c) 344

8.5.4 Hypothesis 8(d) 345

8.5.5 Hypothesis 8(e) 346

8.5.6 Hypothesis 8(f) 347

8.5.7 Hypothesis 8(g) 348

8.5.8 Hypothesis 8(h) 348

8.5.9 Hypothesis 8(i) 349

8.5.10 Hypothesis 8(j) 350

8.5.11 Hypothesis 8(k) 351

8.5.12 Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings 352

8.6 Moderation Analysis 353

8.6.1 The Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction

and Intention to Leave 355

8.6.2 The Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction


8.6.3 The Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction


8.6.4 The Moderator Effect of Management Position on the Relationship between

Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave 359

8.6.5 Summary of the Moderation Analysis Findings 360

8.7 Conclusion 361

Chapter 9: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


9.2 Summary of the Current Study and Research Aims 367

9.3 Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research Methodology 369

9.4 Findings and Conclusions 372

9.4.1 Key Findings: satisfaction with GUPS, Organisational Antecedents, and Work-

Life Balance 377

9.4.2 Key Findings: Satisfaction Based on Demographic Differences 382

9.4.3 Key Findings: Level of Intention to Leave the Organisation 387

9.4.4 Key Findings: he Relationship between the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction,

Overall Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Leave 388

xii

9.4.5 Key Findings: Mediation and Moderation Roles 390

9.5 Implications, Limitations & Recommendations 390

9.5.1 Contributions to Knowledge 390

9.5.2 Implications for Methodology 395

9.5.3 Implications for the University and Policy Makers 396

9.5.4 Limitation of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research 398

9.6 Conclusion 400

Appendix A: Ethics Approval Letters 402

Appendix B: Interview Schedule 405

Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted from the Thesis 409

Bibliography 410

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Organisation of Chapter 1 3


Figure 2.2: Herzberg’s continuum of satisfiers-dissatisfiers 39

Figure 2.3: Conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory 42

Figure 2.4: Conditions of Equity and Inequity 44

Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for the Study 64


Figure 3.2: The research design model 74

Figure 3.3: Visual model for mixed-methods sequential design procedures 79

Figure 3.4: The Mediation Model 94

Figure 3.5: Model of Moderation 98






Figure 8.2: Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings 353

Figure 8.3: Interaction of Age and Overall Job Satisfaction in Predicting

Intention to Leave 358


Figure 9.2: Conceptual Framework of the Study 370

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1.1: The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions

(SETARA’11)

Table 2.1: Herzberg’s Hygiene and Motivator Factors

13

39

Table 2.2: Organisational Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 48

Table 3.1: Dimensions and contrasts of the three perspectives of research

methods 73

Table 3.2: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study 77

Table 3.3: Instruments used in the quantitative study 86

Table 3.4: Guildford’s Rule of Thumb 93

Table 3.5: Demographic Characteristics of the Interviewees 101

Table 3.6: Interviewees position in the organisation and gender 102

Table 3.7: Dimensions of satisfaction of interviewed key persons and focus

groups in the qualitative study 104

Table 3.8: Segregation of respondents based on each university 108

Table 3.9: Frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of

respondents (n=1078) 109

Table 3.10: Measures of reliability for all scales

Table 3.11: The Waves of Participations Invitations and Cumulative Responses

112

115

Table 4.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with GUPS 119

Table 4.2: Academics’ satisfaction with government and university policies in

the qualitative study 123

Table 4.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on

Satisfaction with GUPS 135

Table 4.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by

Gender 138

Table 4.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with GUPS among

Academics by Age 138

Table 4.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by

Age 139


Academics by Tenure 140



Table 4.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with GUPS 148

Table 5.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with pay 151

Table 5.2: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Pay

Satisfaction 155

Table 5.3: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender 157

Table 5.4: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Pay among

Academics by Age

158

xv

Table 5.5: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Age 158


Academics by Tenure

159

Table 5.7: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Tenure 160

Table 5.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by


Table 5.9: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with promotion 164

Table 5.10: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on

Promotion Satisfaction 168

Table 5.11: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by

Gender 169

Table 5.12: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion

among Academics by Age 170

Table 5.13: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Age 171

Table 5.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion

among Academics by Tenure 171

Table 5.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Tenure 172



Table 5.17: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with supervision 175

Table 5.18: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with supervision in the qualitative

study 178


Supervision Satisfaction 185

Table 5.20: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by

Gender

187

Table 5.21: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision


Table 5.22: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Age 188

Table 5.23: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision


Table 5.24: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Tenure 189



Table 5.26: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 193

Table 5.27: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Fringe

Benefits Satisfaction 196

Table 5.28: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among

Academics by Gender 198

Table 5.29: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits


Table 5.30: Post-Hoc Analysis for Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age 199

xvi



Table 5.32: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among

Academics by Management Position

200

Table 5.33: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with Contingent

Rewards

202


Contingent Rewards Satisfaction

205

Table 5.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among

Academics by Gender

206

Table 5.36: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent

Rewards among Academics by Age

207

Table 5.37: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by

Age

207

Table 5.38: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent

Rewards among Academics by Tenure

208

Table 5.39: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by

Tenure

208



209

Table 5.41: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational

Antecedents of Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits and Contingent

Rewards

212

Table 6.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with operating conditions 217

Table 6.2: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with operating conditions in the

qualitative study

220


Operating Conditions Satisfaction

226

Table 6.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among

Academics by Gender

227

Table 6.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions among Academics by Age

228

Table 6.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics

by Age

228

Table 6.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions among Academics by Tenure

229

Table 6.8: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics by

Tenure

230



231

Table 6.10: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with co-workers 233

Table 6.11: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with co-workers in the qualitative

study

236

xvii

Table 6.12: Frequencies and Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on

Co-Workers Satisfaction

240

Table 6.13: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics

by Gender

242

Table 6.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers

among Academics by Age

243

Table 6.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Co-Workers among Academics by Age 243

Table 6.16: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers

among Academics by Tenure

244

Table 6.17: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics

by Management Position

245

Table 6.18: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with nature of work 248

Table 6.19: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with nature of work in the

qualitative study

250


Nature of Work Satisfaction

255

Table 6.21: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Nature of Work among

Academics by Gender

256

Table 6.22: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Nature of

Work among Academics by Age

257

Table 6.23: Post-Hoc Analysis for Nature of Work among Academics

by Age

257

Table 6.24: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Nature of

Work among Academics by Tenure

258

Table 6.25: Post-Hoc Analysis for Nature of Work among Academics

by Tenure

258

Table 6.26: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Nature of Work among


259

Table 6.27: General Satisfaction with Communication 262

Table 6.28: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with communication in the

qualitative study

264


Satisfaction with Communication

267

Table 6.30: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among

Academics by Gender

268

Table 6.31: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with

Communication among Academics by Age

269

Table 6.32: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Communication among

Academics by Age

269

Table 6.33: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction Communication


270


Academics by Tenure

271

xviii

Table 6.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among


271

Table 6.36: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational

Antecedents of operating Conditions, Co-Workers, Nature of Work and

Communication

275

Table 7.1: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 280

Table 7.2: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with work-life balance in the

qualitative study

285

Table 7.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on

Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

291

Table 7.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among

Academics by Gender

294

Table 7.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life

Balance among Academics by Age

294

Table 7.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance


295

Table 7.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life

Balance among Academics by Tenure

296

Table 7.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among


297

Table 7.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 298

Table 8.1: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Overall

Satisfaction

304

Table 8.2: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by

Gender

306

Table 8.3: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Overall Job Satisfaction among

Academics by Age

307

Table 8.4: Post-Hoc Analysis for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by

Age

307


Academics by Tenure

308


Management Position

309

Table 8.7: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean of Intention to Leave 310

Table 8.8: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender 311

Table 8.9: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among

Academics by Age

312

Table 8.10: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among

Academics by Tenure

312

Table 8.11: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by

Management Position

313

Table 8.12: Bivariate Correlations between All Variables of the Study 314

xix

Table 8.13: Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job

Satisfaction and Intention to Leave

355

Table 8.14: Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job


356

Table 8.15:Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job


359

Table 8.16: Moderator Effect of Holding Management Position on the

Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave

360

Table 9.1: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study 371

Table 9.2: Summary for the Current Study’s Findings 373

xx

Glossary

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

FHEC The Faculty Human Ethics Committee

FFPs Family-friendly Policies

GUPS Government and Universities Policies and Support

IRPA Intensive research in Priority Area

JSS Job Satisfaction Survey

MIMOS The Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic System

MOSTI The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

R&D Research and Development

RM Ringgit Malaysia

RU Research University

SETARA The Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

UM University of Malaya

UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia

USM Universiti Sains Malaysia

WLP Work-Life Policy

xxi

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Ethics Approval Letters

Appendix B: Interview Schedule

Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted from the Thesis

xxii

Summary

This study aims to explore the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and

consequence of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher education

institutions. A theoretical framework is formulated to support a detailed investigation of the

antecedents that contribute to and consequences of job satisfaction of academics. The

framework incorporates government and universities’ policies, organisational factors and

work-life balance that have been identified within the research literatures as the antecedents

of satisfaction, and intention to leave as the consequence of job satisfaction.

This study implemented a sequential manner of collecting mixed methods data, which started

with a qualitative study followed by a quantitative study. The first stage of the study took the

form of semi-structured interviews with several key persons and focus group members in

order to identify core implications of the identified factors of job satisfaction. A thematic

analysis was employed to analyse each interview with respondents using NVivo. Quantitative

data collection in the second stage consisted of a pilot study and an online survey conducted

through a self-administered online survey tool- Survey Monkey. A total of 1078 academic

staff from three participating public universities responded in this study, representing a total

response rate of 35.7%. Descriptive and inferential analyses were employed to analyse the

relationships between all variables using SPSS.

Based on the data collected in both stages of the study, relationships were determined

between all variables. The study found several differences in all investigated variables based

on the demographic backgrounds of academics. The study also found that overall job

satisfaction mediates the relationships between several antecedents of job satisfaction with

intention to leave the organization. Moreover, this study has identified the significant role of

demographic backgrounds as a moderator between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave. The findings in this study are significant as it contributes very much to the theory,

practice and methodology of future research.

xxiii

Statement of Authorship

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material

published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of

any other degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the

thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree of diploma in any other

tertiary institution.

All research procedures reported in the thesis were approved by the Faculty of Business,

Economics and Law Human Ethics Committee.

KHAIRUNNEEZAM MOHD NOOR

27TH MARCH 2013

xxiv

Acknowledgements

First and foremost,

I want to thank ALLAH, the Almighty, for the strength, for the bless HE granted me all the

way through the process of completing this thesis.

Second,

I want to extend my gratitude to my principal supervisor, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR.

SUZANNE YOUNG, who provided valuable advice and assistance, and kept me on track

and moving forward.

She’s been so motherly to me and will remain as a special person in my entire life.

Third,

a special dedication for my beloved wife, JULIEANA MANGSOR, the one who was so

inspiring, full with perseverance, keeping me motivated all the time in this remarkable

journey, with her love, with her care, with her tenderness, with her tears, with her smiles, and

with her laughs.

This thesis is my precious lifetime gift for you my dear.

Fourth,

the completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of my beloved

parents HAJI MOHD NOOR ABDULLAH and HAJJAH ZALIHA ISMAIL,

the apples of my eyes: KHAIRUNNNIESREENA and KHAIRUNNAUFAL, and my

siblings and in-law: KHAIRUNNAZLEE, SITI FAIRUS, KHAIREENA HAZREEN,

KHAIRUNNAZRIN, and KHAIREENA FAZIRA.

Without failure, they have been there for me all the time to instigate my motivation and

working spirit towards success

Fifth,

I would like to thank PROFESSOR PAULINE STANTON

from the School of Management, Victoria University for her vital guidance

in the early stage of the research process.

Sixth,

I also want to thank PROFESSOR GAVIN JACK,

my associate supervisor for his kind assistance in sharing ideas and constructive comments

on my work.

Finally,

I would like to thank all the participants of the interviews and the online survey, where they

gladly gave their precious time to take part and contribute for the completion of the study.

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This study was developed from the researcher’s experience as an academic in the

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM), one of the newly upgraded public university

colleges in Malaysia. Through the researcher’s experience as a public university

academic, personal observation on the development of Malaysian higher educational

sector, via formal and informal discussions with many colleagues and prominent

members of Malaysian higher educational sector, thorough analyses of the literature,

and quantitative and qualitative research, the current study focused on an academic’

work-related attitude – job satisfaction.

This study investigates the relationship between the antecedents of job

satisfaction with overall job satisfaction among academics of Malaysian higher

education institutions. Furthermore, this study also investigates the consequence of

overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention to leave the organisation. Next,

this study explores the mediation and moderation effects of several specific variables

in the study.

The development of higher education institutions in Malaysia has been rapid

since the establishment of the University of Malaya in 1962. The development

includes increasing numbers of public and private universities, intense growth of

student enrolments, expansion of courses offered by higher education institutions in

various fields especially in science and technology, the implementation of a

meritocracy system in students’ enrolment, the increased use of internet and web-

based teaching, the implementation of a more stringent assessment and appraisal

system, and additional government and private funding and accompanying research

opportunities (Ahmad, 1998; Din, 2001; Hassan, 2001; Kamsari, 2007; Ministry of

Higher Education, 2012).These changes have arisen from a variety of drivers such as

pressures of demand, a cultural shift in the way in which higher education is viewed,

2

financial issues, structural and managerial diversity, and an assortment of changes in

university mission or emphasis.

All of these changes demonstrate that ‘university academics do complex work

in an increasingly demanding environment’ (Houston, Meyer & Paewai, 2006:17).

Hagen (2002) asserts that universities are the largest ‘knowledge-based’ institution in

the regions; hence they are urged by industry and policy makers to transform their

traditional roles of teaching and research by adding an additional pivotal role in

economic regional development. It means that university academics are expected to

aid economic regeneration by disseminating their knowledge and expertise through

industry linked partnerships.

However, each party (industry, policy makers, society, government and

universities) needs to be aware that their demands on academics could contribute to

uncertainty in terms of the academic role which in turn affects their work-related

attitudes including job satisfaction. As Briggs (2005) argues:

‘...lack of clarity about roles introduces role ambiguity and role conflict with

significant impact on the achievement of personal and organizational goals,

resulting in employee anxiety and dissatisfaction and lack of organisational

effectiveness amongst academic staff’ (p257).

Furthermore, it also contributes to the other attitudinal and behavioural

drawbacks among academics such as low commitment, career burnout, high level of

intention to leave the organisation, discipline problems, and actual turnover amongst

others (see Abu Bakar, 1985; Abdul Rahman, 2001; Abdullah, 1992; Hagedorn, 2000;

Houston et al., 2006; Joiner & Bakalis, 2006; Nasurdin, Ramayah & Hemdi, 2005;

Newby, 1999; Noordin & Jusoff, 2009; Okpara, 2006; Toker, 2011).

The researcher believed that there were several pertinent issues in the

Malaysian higher educational sector which significantly and continuously impacted

the job satisfaction of academics in public university. These include the expansion of

the Malaysian higher educational sector, internationalisation of the higher educational

sector, corporatisation and privatisation, and quality improvement. The researcher

also believed that there were some important antecedents regarded by university

academics as pertinent sources of job satisfaction. Furthermore, the researcher

believed that the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction influence

3

a selected work-related attitudinal consequence which is intention to leave the

organisation.

This chapter provides a fundamental background of the overall thesis, and

introduces the area of concern for the research, canvassing the sections shown in

Figure 1.1.

Section

Description

This section introduces the chapter and gives

an overview of the sections

This section describes the problem statement

and significance of the research

This section explains the history and

background of higher education in Malaysia

This section states the aims of the research

This section describes the structure of the

thesis and gives an overview of the whole

research

Figure 1.1: Organisation of Chapter 1

1.2 Problem Statement and Significance of the Study

This section explains the current study’s problem statement, followed by the

significance of the study. According to Spector (1997), research findings suggest that

job satisfaction is not a static state but is subject to influence and modification from

forces within and outside an individual; that is his or her own personal characteristics

and the immediate working environment. Spector (1997:2) further defines job

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Problem Statement &

Significance of the Study

1.4

Research Aims

1.3

A Brief History and

Background of Higher

Education in Malaysia

1.5

Structure of the Thesis

4

satisfaction as ‘the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction)

their jobs’. Furthermore, Okpara (2006) argues about the significance of

understanding the job satisfaction of employees as:

‘…work is an important aspect of people’s lives and most people spend a large

part of their working lives at work, an understanding of the factors involved in

job satisfaction is crucial to improving employees’ performance and

productivity’ (p226).

Many researchers have argued that personal characteristics of academics such

as gender, age and marital status, and working environments such as government and

organisational policy, workloads, compensation system, collegial relationships, and

work-life balance , have long been significant variables of academics’ job satisfaction

(Ch’ng, Chong & Nakesvari, 2010; Ghazi, Ali, Shahzada, & Israr, 2010; Küskü, 2003;

Morris, Yaakob & Wood, 2004; Okpara, 2006; Oshagbemi, 1997a; Oshagbemi,

1997b; Rahman, 1997; Rogers et al., 1994; Saad, 1992; Saiyadain, 1996; Santhapparaj

& Syed, 2005; Toker, 2011; Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). There is also a

significant relationship between job satisfaction with work-related attitudes and

behaviours such as performance, organisational commitment, intention to leave,

absenteeism, and turnover (Brown, 2008; Locke, 1976; Nasurdin et al., 2005; Noblet

et al., 2007; Rahman, 1997; Saiyadain, 1996; Stallworth, 2004; Tahir, 1995; Toker,

2011).

In a global context, there are extensive studies of academics in higher

education. Job satisfaction has been investigated by Oshagbemi (1997a) among UK

higher education institutions academics. Also, research on university academics’ job

satisfaction has been conducted in the USA (see Hagedorn 2000; Polonsky, Juric &

Mankelow, 2003) in China and Taiwan (Tu, Plaisent, Bernard & Maguiraga, 2005), in

Nigeria (Akpofure, Ikhifa, Imide & Okoyoko, 2006), in Pakistan (Ghazi, et al., 2010),

and in Turkey (Küskü 2003 & Toker, 2011).

There is a scarcity of literature exploring the states of job satisfaction and its

relationships with other attitudinal and behavioural variables among Malaysian higher

education institutions’ academic staff particularly in public universities. For example,

in 1985, Abu Bakar conducted a PhD study on job satisfaction among academic staff

of universities in Malaysia. Specifically, the study investigated academics’

satisfactions with their job by evaluating the specific aspects of the job and evaluating

5

the job as a whole (Abu Bakar, 1985). This can be considered as one of the pioneer

attempts to study job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public universities.

However, after more than 25 years, Abu Bakar’s study is no longer relevant since the

landscape of the Malaysian public higher educational sector has been subject to

continuous change and the current status of academics’ job satisfaction may be

dissimilar because of socio-economic development, government and political

influences, organisational environment, and the differences in terms of demographic

characteristics of academic staff themselves.

Another more recent study by Nasurdin et al. (2005) has determined the

influence of job satisfaction facets on organisational commitment among academic

staff in a public university in Malaysia. The work of Nasurdin et al. (2005) was of

interest in this current study because of the interrelationships between job satisfaction

and other attitudinal variables. This was also thought as a good platform to extend the

study of related and specific dimensions or antecedents of job satisfaction and their

relationships with job satisfaction and consequence variables which have not been

sought out by the past research particularly among academics in the Malaysian public

higher education setting.

Santhapparaj and Syed (2005) have examined the correlations between

personal demographic variables with job satisfaction of Malaysian universities

academic staff. Ch’ng et al. (2010) carried out a study on job satisfaction among

lecturers of Penang Private Colleges Lecturers. However, these studies were

conducted only among private institutions academics and did not attempt to include

academics in public universities. The current study was also constructed to include

demographics differences, particularly among the academic staff in the public higher

education institutions in Malaysia.

Noordin and Jusoff (2009) have conducted a study of job satisfaction of

academic staff of a public university in Malaysia. This is the latest attempt made to

reveal the current status of job satisfaction among academics in a public university in

Malaysia. However, the study only investigated general feelings of satisfaction among

academics in one public university without any specific analyses on its relationships

with antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among academics.

At this time, the current association between the antecedents of job

satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and its consequences among academics in

Malaysian public universities is still undetermined. Hence, the antecedents of job

6

satisfaction, the state of overall job satisfaction, and the relationship of these variables

with the selected outcome or consequence of job satisfaction, which is intention to

leave the organisation, are investigated in this study.

This study is also initiated to fill a gap and scarcity in the literature pertaining

to job satisfaction particularly among academics in public higher education

institutions in the Malaysian setting. Firstly, most of the past research on academics in

the higher educational sector in Malaysia focuses narrowly on specific one-to-one

relationships of several of the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job

satisfaction; for instance, the works of Abdullah (1992), Nasurdin et al. (2005), and

Noordin and Jusoff (2009). Therefore, this study will provide an in-depth thematic

analysis of the identified antecedents of job satisfaction and further empirically

explore the association between all the antecedents with job satisfaction and

consequence variable of job satisfaction.

Secondly, as importantly demonstrates in the next chapter of literature review,

this study is also proposing the insertion of government and universities policies and

support as well as work-life balance as important antecedents of job satisfaction

alongside the other organisational antecedents determined by past research (see

Akpofure, 2006; Santhapparaj & Syed, 2005; Spector, 1997). This analysis will be

further broadened by conducting a series of statistical analysis on the

interrelationships between antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and

intention to leave, together with the differences based on demographic backgrounds of

the academics.

The findings of this study will be of benefit to the academics, universities, the

Malaysian government, and future researchers in making significant effort to describe

the state of academics’ satisfaction with the antecedents’ variables, their overall

satisfaction and intention to leave. This research is significant as it contributes very

much to the knowledge, practice and methodology for future research. The current

study also proposes an integration of a conceptual framework to become a noteworthy

basis for the establishment of the future research.

In the realm of its contribution to the practice, this study is expected to be able

to help other researchers, universities’ management, and the government in planning

their strategies and approaches to generate and sustain an excellent state of job

satisfaction among academics in higher education institutions. Issues and findings

7

explored in the current study can be a vital indicator and guide on the importance of

job satisfaction among academics.

Finally, in terms of the methodological significance, the research is anticipated

to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of having a mixed-method analysis which

incorporates qualitative and quantitative approaches of gathering data. According to

DeCuir-Gunby (2008), Hosie (2003), Talbot (1992), and Teddlie and Tashakkori

(2009), the strategy of having a triangulation-based analysis assists in reducing bias of

selecting a single method in a single study.

1.3 A Brief History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia

This section describes a brief of the higher educational sector in Malaysia in two sub-

sections. It starts with the first section of the history and background of public and

private higher educational institutions, reforms on Malaysian higher educational

sector, and rating system for higher education institutions in Malaysia. Next, the

section discusses the global context of higher education.

1.3.1 History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia

1.3.1.1 Public Higher Educational Institutions

The history and development of public higher education institutions in

Malaysia started with the establishment of the University of Malaya (UM). As

Malaysia’s oldest university, UM was established in April 1949 in Singapore with the

merger of the King Edward VII College of Medicine and Raffles College. The

University of Malaya derives its name from the term 'Malaya' as the country was then

known. The Carr-Saunders Commission, which recommended the setting up of the

university, noted in its Report in 1948:

‘The University of Malaya would provide for the first time a common centre

where varieties of race, religion and economic interest could mingle in joint

endeavour...for a University of Malaya must inevitably realise that it is a

university for Malaya’ (University of Malaya, 2012).

8

The growth of UM was rapid during the first decade of its establishment and

this resulted in the establishment of two autonomous Divisions in 1959, one located in

Singapore and the other in Kuala Lumpur. In 1960, the government of the two

territories indicated their desire to change the status of the Divisions into that of a

national university. Legislation was passed in 1961 and the UM was established on

1st January 1962 (University of Malaya, 2012).

Subramani and Kempner (2002) stated that upon independence, the main

thrust for national economic development focused on industrialisation and the

creation of employment for large numbers of graduating seniors from secondary

schools. The authors asserted that education in technology and sciences was deemed

essential to create a strong industrial sector to achieve the national goals. Hence, the

Science University of Malaysia or Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) was established

in 1969. In the 60's, demands were also made for the establishment of a university that

could meet the educational needs of Malays and the development of their language.

To propel and foster national culture, national values, national consciousness and

national unity, in 1970 the National University of Malaysia or Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia (UKM) was established (Subramani & Kempner, 2002). UKM was the third

university established in Malaysia after University of Malaya and Science University

of Malaysia. In 2012, there are 20 public universities in Malaysia and the latest

government university established is the National Defence University of Malaysia,

established on November 2006 (Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, 2012).

1.3.1.2 Private Higher Educational Institutions

The Malaysian government is aware that due to economic strains it cannot be

the solitary provider of education and the best solution is to collaborate with private

and corporate organisations to fulfil public demand. The government believed that by

the year 2013 the number of students enrolled in local higher education institutions

would be more than 1.3 million (Kamsari, 2007) which doubled the number of

enrolments of 873 238 students in 2007 (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia,

2012). Public universities could not provide enough space for this enormous number

of students and the private education institutions have emerged to meet demand. The

establishment of private higher education institutions complements public universities

in ‘providing greater access to a wider spectrum of students’ (Goh, 2005:17).

9

Subramani and Kempner (2002) argue that private universities offer equal and

identical places of study in term of quantity and quality to the public universities.

In June 2010, there were about 476 private higher education institutions

approved by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, including local universities,

college universities, community colleges, and foreign universities (Ministry of Higher

Education Malaysia, 2010). There are 23 private universities, 21 private university

colleges and five foreign branch campus universities (Ministry of Higher Education

Malaysia, 2010). These private higher education institutions are offering either home-

grown degree programs or foreign degree qualifications and many of these institutions

have twinning degree arrangement with reputable foreign universities (The National

Education System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007). The mushrooming of foreign

education providers in Malaysia particularly led Ahmad (1998) to assert that ‘this will

bring dilemmas for Malaysian society should there be an invasion of foreign

‘curriculum’ in the branch campuses, and an influx of foreign students in the country’

(p 471).

To ensure quality education and to safeguard the interests of local and

international students, all private higher education institutions are required to register

with and be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and they must

abide by the Parliament Acts such as the Private Higher Educational Institutional Act

1996 and the Education Act 1996 (The National Education System, High-Tertiary

Level, 2007). In addition, all private higher education institutions are scrutinised by

the National Accreditation Board established under The National Accreditation Board

Act 1996. Under this act, private higher education institutions are required to establish

and maintain acceptable standards and quality of courses (The National Education

System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007).

1.3.1.3 Reforms in the Malaysian Higher Education Sector

Since the birth of Malaysia in 1957, the government has placed a strong

emphasis on improving the quality of teaching with the supply of better-qualified

teachers and lecturers, innovation in the teaching and learning processes, and

increased use of computers and multimedia in schools and higher educational

institutions (Hassan, 2001). Ahmad (1998:462) stressed the essential roles played by

the government in the country’s educational development:

10

‘Educational development and reform in Malaysia has always been

characterised by the government’s efforts to adapt education to national

development needs. The essence of educational development and reformation,

as in other developing countries, has always been (and is) curriculum

development, to provide education for human resource development to meet

the needs of the social, economic and political development of the country’.

There are two key aims on the development of the education system in

Malaysia. Firstly, the multi-faceted role the education system must take in creating a

united Malaysian society (Goh, 2005). Secondly, education acts as a vehicle for

economic and social development, with an emphasis on developing responsible

citizens to face the challenges of a developed nation, and in doing so, moulding future

Malaysians to be leaders of tomorrow (Goh, 2005). To that effect, Malaysia

emphasises at all level of education, a holistic (intellectual, spiritual, physical and

emotional) approach to quality human development (Ahmad, 1998:464). This is

clearly portrayed in the National Educational Philosophy:

‘Education in Malaysia is on-going efforts towards further developing the

potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce

individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically

balanced and harmonic, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such

an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable

and competent, who possess high moral standards and who are responsible and

capable of achieving high level of personal well-being as well as being able to

contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the

nation at large’ (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2005).

According to Zakaria (2001) the National Education Philosophy emphasizes

lifelong education, good citizenship, and the overall development of the individual

based on the belief in God, and the knowledge and skills necessary for effective

contribution to the social and economic well being of the nation. The National

Education Philosophy reflects that education is one of the critical drivers of the

nation’s development. Hence, the Malaysian government continuously assists and

provides physical, monetary and morale supports to all established formal educational

providers in the country.

11

In year 1996, new legislative measures were constituted and provided the legal

mechanisms necessary for a comprehensive reform of the education system and

among the changes was the introduction of the Education Act 1996 (Goh, 2005).

There were five acts that constituted the umbrella of the Education Act 1996 which

reflect the different sectors of higher education. The acts were the National Council of

Higher Education Act 1996, the Private Higher Education Institution Act 1996, the

Universities and University College (Amendment) Act 1996, the National

Accreditation Board Act 1996 and the National Higher Education Fund Board Act

1996.

According to Zakaria (2001), this legislation reflects the successful effort of

the government to position Malaysia as a regional education hub and facilitate a more

market-centred education system. Furthermore, the reforms within the various higher

education acts are seen as ‘a vehicle to promote knowledge acquisition that can ignite

productivity, creativity, thinking minds, and the strategic application of knowledge

and skills in a globalised environment among learners’ (Goh, 2005:13).

The first aim of these acts is to enhance the quality of higher education in

Malaysia by allowing higher education providers to offer various courses that meet

market demand. Second, through these acts the government visualised their hope that

the nation’s education system could achieve world class education status. Third, these

acts aim to propel Malaysia into the new millennium and to the vision of achieving

the status of a fully developed nation by 2020 (Goh, 2005).

The establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education on 27 March 2004

marked an important part of history of higher education in Malaysia (Ministry of

Higher Education Malaysia, 2006; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012).

The Ministry of Higher Education took the governing authority from the Ministry of

Education for the Malaysian higher education sector, specifically overseeing higher

educational institutions and other government agencies involved in higher education

activities

Under the governance of the Ministry of Higher Education, the Malaysian

higher educational sector has developed constantly. The growth of higher education in

Malaysia can be seen in several areas including increases in student enrolment,

increases in the number of public and private higher education institutions, increases

in government spending on higher education especially public institutions, additional

government policies in promoting education, and the country’s continuous need for

12

human resources (Firdaus, 2006; Hashim, 2012; Hassan & Hashim, 2011; Kanji &

Malik, 1998; Mohd Noor, 2007).

1.3.1.4 Rating System for Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia

The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) Rating System for Higher Education

Institutions in Malaysia (its acronym is SETARA) was implemented by using a rating

mechanism to measure the performance of teaching and learning in universities and

university colleges in Malaysia (MQA Malaysia, 2013). The SETARA rating exercise

was carried out since 2006. The latest SETARA rating was for the year of 2011 where

it used a total of 25 criteria captured through 82 indicators comprising the generic

framework of Input, Process, and Output (see the brief explanation of the framework

in section 1.3.2.3). Benchmark figure were established for the indicators.

According to the Malaysian Qualification Agency (2013), data for the final

analysis were sourced from the institutions as well as the Malaysian Academic

Performance Audit (APA), the Generic Student Attributes (GSA) test score, the

Tracer Study, and the Employer Survey. The committee for this rating used a decision

support system program, in making decisions on the weights of the generic

dimensions, domains, criteria and indicators. The SETARA exercise classifies its

rating into six Tiers, ranging from Tier 1 as weak to Tier 6 as outstanding. Table 1.1

below is the full result for the Malaysian public higher education institutions,

sequenced in alphabetical order.

Based on the rating given by the MQA for the year 2011, it can be concluded

that the quality shown by all of the public universities was ranged between Tier5

(Excellent) to Tier3 (Good). Thirteen out of 20 public universities was classified as

excellent, while another six universities were rated as very good, which fulfilled the

Key Performance Index (KPI) set by the Ministry of Higher education (Ministry of

Higher Education, 2013).

13

Table 1.1: The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions

(SETARA’11)

TIER6: OUTSTANDING

-

TIER5: EXCELLENT

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

ISLAMIC SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA

TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MARA

UNIVERSITY TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA

TIER4: VERY GOOD

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA KELANTAN

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA TERENGGANU

UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS

UNIVERSIT PERTAHANAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA

TIER3: GOOD

UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN

TIER2: SATISFACTORY

-

TIER1: WEAK

-

14

1.3.2 The Global Context of Higher Education

Higher education is influential in the development of a country, as it not only

functions as a provider of knowledge, but also as a pertinent sector for the nation’s

growth and societal well-being. Thillaisundaram (2003) suggests higher education’s

contribution is not only producing outputs of teaching (transmission of knowledge)

and research (knowledge extension) but also has a general community and social

services role.

The Australian government for example, regards higher education as

contributing not only to produce a knowledgeable and highly capable workforce, but

also to the fulfilment of societal potential, the advancement of knowledge, and social

and economic progress (Nelson, 2002a). Nelson (2002a) further asserts that

Australian higher education institutions have a broad public responsibility and it

means that they must act ethically in all their activities, including their research and

commercial undertakings.

This section discusses three major issues in the global spectrum of higher

education which are expansion and roles of higher educational sector, globalisation

and internationalisation of higher educational sector, and quality of higher educational

sector.

1.3.2.1 Expansion of Roles of Higher Educational Sector

The international tertiary education environment has undergone significant

changes since the early 1990s (Muller-Camen & Salzgeber, 2005; Polonskyet al.,

2003). Furthermore, the external pressures for change in universities are increasing,

not decreasing (Scott, 2004). These changes are due to new modes of organising and

delivering educational material, the emphasis on research over teaching, the

transformation of management models, and new funding mechanisms (Polonsky et al.,

2003). Fowler (2005) argues it is difficult to gauge which factor has had the most

effect, since many of them are inter-related (for example an increase in the number of

students, a decrease in the staff and student ratio, widening participation, an increase

in workload and a change in management style) which affected not only the

universities but also staff working in higher education. Houston et al. (2006) assert

that in New Zealand for example, tertiary reforms sought to redefine the role of higher

15

education to enhance national economic development, to make universities more

accountable to government, to treat students as consumers and to subject universities

to more centralised control mechanisms.

The role of university academics is no longer simply focused on teaching,

research and management. University academics are now expected by the society,

industries and government to play a vital part in a wider spectrum of responsibilities.

Houston et al. (2006:19) state that:

‘Recent dialogue regarding the place of universities in a ‘knowledge society’

has not necessarily reflected upon the impact on the workloads of faculty

given increased expectations for measurable outputs, responsiveness to

societal and student needs, and overall performance accountability’.

These additional roles have pressured higher education institutions and its

academics to be more responsive to environmental change that happens in the internal

university environment and in the global spectrum. Hagen (2002) suggests that

universities need to respond to economic pressures of globalization in a similar way to

large corporations by freeing themselves from uni-dimensional, hierarchical structures

which are unresponsive and non-interactive with environmental change. Increasingly,

universities are expected to act as profit-based organisations and compete in the

educational market to gain revenue and at the same time contribute to the overall

industrial and national economic development.

1.3.2.2 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector

Globalisation and internationalisation are other challenges that impact on

higher education. Globalisation - above all, in terms of the increased mobility of

capital, the integration of markets, and rapid technological change - has presented

individual nations with stark challenges, to compete or face peripheralisation, to try to

secure a position as a ‘high-wage, high skill economy’, in contrast to a ‘low-wage,

low skill’ one (Morris et al., 2004). The impacts of globalisation and

internationalisation on higher education include the content of management education,

the threat of competition from both local and international competitors, the role of

world-class research, reputation- and capacity-building, and the formation of

collaborations with like-minded institutions around the world (Cox, 2005).

16

Higher education has grown rapidly and now operates in the international

market. Organisations that operate only in the domestic markets can become obsolete.

Businesses typically need to grow and widen their market to survive, and to achieve

this growth those businesses choose to compete internationally (Cox, 2005).

Universities need to restructure their objectives, strategies and operations to be

competitive in the international market. They have to focus on achieving international

standards in teaching and learning, research quality, technology, managerial systems,

and industrial and government cooperation strategies. For example a number of

Australian universities have combined their strengths and capabilities through

alliances to gain more benefits to survive in the global education context. A report by

the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training states:

‘Increasingly, the Australian higher education system is seeking to build a

higher threshold capability to compete internationally in teaching and

research. To this end, a number of Australian universities have led the

formation of international consortia such as The International Network of

Universities, Universitas 21 and The Global University Alliance. Such

strategic alliances are complex businesses involving new patterns of around-

the-clock operations, and demanding new approaches to the management of

partner and customer relationships, product and service development,

marketing and logistics, and financial and reputational risks’ (Nelson, 2002b).

Mutual cooperation amongst universities is also being implemented by

English and American higher educational institutions. As Hagen (2002) points out

English and American universities are beginning to re-examine their traditional role

and are strategically addressing some of the resource issues by forging global

alliances amongst themselves. These educational alliances reflect strategies pursued

by Australian, American and English universities to assure that they are at the

forefront of the global educational revolution.

Taking note on the positive impacts of globalisation and internationalisation

on higher education, several leading countries in the Asian region, have also signaled

their intentions towards internationalising their higher educational sector and to

become a regional education hub. According to Knight and Morshidi (2011), the

Chief Executive’s 2004 Policy Address announced a plan ‘‘to promote Hong Kong as

17

Asia’s world city’’ which includes building Hong Kong’s capacity to serve as a

regional higher education hub (p 598).

Knight and Morshidi (2011) further elaborated that, a key theme in this plan,

which has relevance for their hub model, is the development of an interlocking system

where the whole higher education sector is viewed as one force, with each institution

fulfilling a unique role, based on its individual mission and particular strengths

(p599). Hence, differentiation of role and international competitiveness of each

institution’s teaching and research strength are identified as the backbone for domestic

reform and an important feature for the internationalization effort (Aihara, 2009: 89).

In Singapore, the Global Schoolhouse is the official name of the country’s

initiative to develop a regional educational hub of students, scholars and research

expertise. Plans to attract foreign institutions to Singapore started in 1997 with

Singapore’s goal of attracting 10 world class universities by 2007 (Knight &

Morshidi, 2011: 597). Reputable universities have been invited from China, USA,

Australia, France, India, Germany and the Netherlands to offer niche programs

according to their individual strengths. The most recent developments include the

establishment of Singapore University of Technology and Design in collaboration

with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Zhejiang University from China

(Knight & Morshidi, 2011: 598). By offering an interdisciplinary program based on a

tripartite model with its American and Chinese partners Singapore demonstrates it

agility to creatively build education and research partnerships with international

universities and further its progress to becoming a regional education hub

(Lasanowski, 2009).

1.3.2.3 Quality of Higher Educational Sector

To remain successful in global competition, the issue of quality emerges as a

challenge for higher education along with other pertinent questions such as: How do

we judge a university that has good quality? What type of roles should be played by a

university? What kind of activities does a university need to engage with? Dator

(2004:4) for instance argues on the understanding of quality in higher education

institutions:

‘Answers to what roles and activities that must be accordingly and actively

played by higher education institutions help then determine what is taught, and

18

what is not taught; who “teachers” are and how they are educated; who pays

for education, and how much; who decides what is taught, and in what

sequence; what the educational “delivery system” is like; and who determines

whether whatever is to be taught has been taught “well” or not—its quality’.

Defining ‘quality’ in higher education is a challenge (Nelson, 2002c). Some

universities base quality on teaching and learning process, but there are also different

quality attributions through other activities like research, management, contribution to

society, financial accountability and capability of graduates produced (Mohd Noor,

2004; Rahim, 2007; Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007; Ramakrishnan, 2005).

Chua (2004) adopted a system approach and an Input–Process–Output (IPO)

framework to classify the quality attributes of education. Chua (2004) proposes that

‘Input’ refers to the entry requirements and selection of students, ‘Process’ refers to

the teaching and learning process, and ‘Output’ refers to the employability and

academic standings. To sustain good quality, universities and academic staff must

uphold all of these attributes, since they are vital determinants of university standards

perceived by students, stakeholders, society and government.

1.4 Research Aims

The topic for this research is constructed by four focal aims. Firstly, this study aims to

explore the antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in public higher

education institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aims to examine the

interactions between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job

satisfaction of the academics and their intention to leave. Thirdly, this study aims to

investigate the consequence of overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention

to leave the organisation. Fourthly, this study aims to investigate the mediation and

moderation effects of several specific variables in the study.

1.5 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is organised into nine chapters. The thesis presents the development of the

research articulately. Although the chapters are written according to the normal

19

research sequences, the progress of the research is not particularly in accordance with

the chapter sequence. There are interconnections among different chapters and sub-

sections of the chapters, thus, they should not be read in isolation, but the paramount

approach to understanding the research is by briefly revisiting the related sections

when needed.

Chapter 2 focuses on the review of literature related on the background, key

issues, drivers and challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia, antecedents of job

satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave the organisation in general

and in the higher education sector in particular. The discussion is followed by the

construction of the research questions and a conceptual framework for the study.

Chapter 3 describes the research methodology. The chapter begins by

discussing the research paradigm of the research. Next, the chapter explains the

implementation of a mixed-methods research design, development of the theoretical

model for the study, sampling issues, assessment of validity and reliability, research

hypotheses, ethical considerations, and data analysis. This chapter also outlines

backgrounds of the qualitative study and quantitative study. The chapter specifically

explores the findings on the demographic data from interviews and online survey,

findings of normality tests in the online survey, measures of reliability and validity,

and explanations on several statistical methods used in the online survey.

Chapters 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 describe the satisfaction with

several antecedents of job satisfaction, with each chapter refining and clarifying these

variables through qualitative and quantitative methods.

Chapter 8 outlines descriptive and empirical findings of the online survey.

Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the research and concludes the research by listing

key contributions of the research towards theory, practice and methodology. Finally,

the chapter proposes recommendations for future research.

20

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The general aim of this study was to examine the relationships between the

antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave as the

consequence of satisfaction among academics in public higher education institutions

in Malaysia. Nevertheless, due to the inadequate number of Malaysian resources

found on each of the constructs and targeted group investigated in the current study,

this chapter focuses on studies done mostly in other countries and in several different

sectors and occupations in Malaysia. The pertinent goal of the literature review is to

examine important information about job satisfaction and its relationships with the

antecedent and consequence variables. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted

in Figure 2.1.

The chapter is structured into seven main sections. Firstly, the chapter begins

with the descriptions of background, key issues, drivers and challenges of the Higher

Education sector in Malaysia. Secondly, literature review of job satisfaction and its

antecedents are elaborated. In this section particularly, the definitions of job

satisfaction are defined together with elaboration on several job satisfaction theories.

Thirdly, the chapter discusses the antecedents of job satisfaction. Fourth, intention to

leave as the consequence of job satisfaction is explicated. Fifthly, the chapter

explains the construction of the conceptual framework for the study. Finally, a

summary of research questions for the study is detailed.

21

Section

Description This section introduces the chapter and gives

an overview of the sections

This section describes the key issues, drivers

and challenges of Higher Education in

Malaysia

This section elaborates on job satisfaction and

related theories

This section describes the antecedents of job

satisfaction

This section explains intention to leave as the

consequence of job satisfaction

This section explains the construction of the

conceptual framework for the study

This section details the summary of research

questions in the study

The section concludes all the preceding

sections in the chapter.


2.1 Introduction

2.3 Literature Reviews of Job

Satisfaction & Theories

2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction

2.6 Conceptual Framework for the

Study

2.5 Consequence of Job

Satisfaction: Intention to Leave

2.7 Summary of Research

Questions

2.8 Conclusion

2.2 Drivers & Challenges of Higher

Education in Malaysia

22

2.2 Drivers and Challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia

This section describes the key issues and challenges in the Malaysian higher

educational sector.

2.2.1 Key Issues and Challenges in the Malaysian Higher Educational Sector

From the Malaysian perspective, factors such as globalisation, socio-economic

patterns, university-industry partnerships, workforce demands, and political and

government policies are viewed as among the key issues and challenges in the

development of the higher educational sector (see Ahsan, Abdullah, David & Alam,

2009; Aihara, 2009: Badawi, 2007; Din, 2001; Hassan, 2001; Hill, 2000; Knight &

Morshidi, 2011).

Specifically, in accordance with the literature review of Malaysian higher

education sector, eight key issues and challenges are discussed below. They are:

i. expansion of Malaysian higher educational sector,

ii. internationalisation of higher education,

iii. corporatisation and privatisation of higher education institutions,

iv. improving the quality of the higher educational sector,

v. government support,

vi. human capital development,

vii. university-industry collaboration, and

viii. cultivating research and development in higher education.

2.2.1.1 Expansion of Malaysian Higher Educational Sector

Malaysian higher educational institutions are experiencing substantial growth

as a result of government expansion of the education industry (see Ahsan et al., 2009;

Kanji & Malik, 1998; Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, 2012; Mohamed,

2006). This growth is reflected in an increase in student enrolment, an increase in the

number of public and private higher education institutions, an increase in government

spending on higher education especially public institutions, additional government

policies in promoting education, and the country’s continuous need for human

resources (Kanji & Malik, 1998).

23

As well as supplying human resources for industry, the other functions of

Malaysian higher education as perceived by the government, industry and society are

to explore new knowledge and produce research outcomes to fulfil the public and the

nation’s needs (Arshad, 2007). A former Minister of Higher Education of Malaysia

argues:

‘The public is more demanding. They want the best for their children, and the

returns of their educational investments must be justifiable. In other words,

universities and other institutions of higher education today are meant to serve

society, in promoting the quality of life of citizens. They are the institutions

that will produce significant numbers of the workforce of the nation and

determine its position in the league of nations’ (Mohamed, 2006).

2.2.1.2 Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector

The Malaysian public universities’ and most of the private universities’ focal

goal is for universities to become world-class (see Mahmud, 2007; Ministry of Higher

Education, 2012; Mohd Noor, 2007; Ramakrishnan, 2005; Subramani & Kempner,

2002). The goal has encouraged each university to upgrade the quality and quantity of

its human resources, physical facilities, research and development program and

curriculum. To attain world-class status, a university must prepare to face the

challenge of global competition, adopt more complex multidimensional strategic

objectives, and change physical attributes, mindset and learning activities (Hagen,

2002).

There has been some success in the Malaysian higher educational sector

especially in public institutions. For example, the University Malaya, University of

Science Malaysia and National University of Malaysia were amongst the top global

universities according to the Times Higher Education Supplement (O'Leary, 2006),

however, to maintain success in terms of internationalisation of higher education is

not easy. Mohamed (2006) argued that the government has identified three important

measures which need to be reflected by higher education institutions if they want to

be truly global. First, they need to have meaningful representation of international

students in the institutions. Second, they need to incorporate more international

24

content into their research and teaching. Third, they need to form strategic

partnerships with reputable higher learning institutions overseas.

The Malaysian government is committed to the efforts of internationalisation

of its higher educational sector. Mohamed (2006) argues:

‘We want our higher education institutions to be well known internationally.

We want the work of our professors, to be cited by intellectuals globally. We

want our universities to be world class resource centres, which would extend

the frontiers of knowledge, and contribute towards human development’

(Mohamed, 2006).

The desire among local Malaysian universities to be in the international

market is based on the success of universities in other nations. The success in the

internationalisation efforts shown by higher education institutions in United Kingdom,

United States of America, Australia and New Zealand have been noted by the

Malaysian universities. Australian universities for instance, have successfully

implemented their strategies of ‘exporting’ higher educational services, which

generates much-needed revenue for the Australian universities and contributes more

than AUD5 billion income to Australia’s national economy (Rizvi, 2004). Onshore

enrolments of international students in higher education dominate Australia's

international trade in education (Disney, 2004). On top of that, the growth in the

number of international students, which has averaged more than ten per cent per year

over the past decade, has been cited as a major indicator of success, and these students

contribute about thirty per cent of the total revenue of many Australian universities

(Rizvi, 2004).

Presently, the government has already implemented new educational policies

and strategies to attract foreign students to study in Malaysian universities. The

establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education along with the promulgation of

Education Act 1996 reinforced the eminent development of higher educational

institutions especially the private education sector in Malaysia (Goh, 2005; Mahmud,

2007; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012). The Malaysian government

believes that in order to achieve success through these reforms, the government and

universities will need to focus on strong research, effective leadership and

management, and impeccable academic standards (Ahsan et al., 2009). The distinction

of these reforms is proven by the fact that the number of foreign students rose from

25

13,472 (2.34%) of overall students enrolled in Malaysian universities in 2001, to

33,903 (6.0%) in 2005, and 62,705 in 2010 (11%) (Ministry of Higher Education

Malaysia, 2012a; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b). These reforms not

only aid and push Malaysia into the new millennium, they contribute to the vision of

achieving the status of a fully developed nation by 2020 (Aihara, 2009; Goh, 2005),

and enhance the Malaysian higher educational sector towards success in the

international market.

2.2.1.3 Corporatisation and Privatisation of Higher Education Institutions

The Malaysian government has responded to globalisation challenges in

higher education (Yusof & Mohamed, 2002) by improving and advancing existing

systems through the corporatisation of public universities and encouraging the

development of private higher education (Hashim, 2012). In tandem with the

government’s drive to promote greater independence and creativity to enable better

management in producing either goods or services, especially those of public interest,

other entities have also been corporatised and some even privatised (Yusof &

Mohamed, 2002). It is believed that the introduction of privatisation of public higher

education is based on the previous success of the corporatisation of other government

departments or subsidiaries, for example, the privatisation of the government owned

telecommunications department, the Jabatan Telekom (now Telekom Malaysia

Berhad) in 1986, government power authority, the National Electricity Board (Now

Tenaga Nasional Berhad) in 1990, the National Heart Institute in 1992, and the

Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic System (MIMOS) in 1996.

The corporatisation of public higher education began with University Malaya

in January 1998. Based on this success, it was followed by the other public

universities. Yusof and Mohamed (2002:78) argue that

‘Through corporatisation, higher education institutions gain autonomy in

decision making pertaining to daily business operations without having to

adhere to bureaucratic regulations and procedures. Commercialisation, as a

result of pursuing corporatisation, gives rise to economies of scale and

improvements in services, moves towards capturing a larger market share and

induces healthy competition’.

26

Also, it is through corporatisation that universities gain an increase in public

confidence. For example, autonomy for corporatised universities provides more

opportunities for them to develop their own academic programs and to run these

programs in a more focused and effective way while still remaining accountable to the

government (Yusof & Mohamed, 2002). However, corporatisation of higher

education has its possible drawbacks as Sawyer, Johnson and Holub (2007:2) argue:

‘When a university becomes a corporate university, the language of the market

replaces the language of learning; the university becomes a firm, the university

system becomes an industry, education becomes a product, and the academic

is homogenized’.

According to Sawyer et al. (2007), the nature of a corporatised university

brings greater challenge for university management to operate independently and

generates additional workloads among academics and administrators. Corporatisation

is also assumed as a possible trigger towards academics’ disssatisfaction which in turn

leads to other work-related attitudes and behaviours such as organisational

commitment, intent to leave, and turnover (Arshad, 2007; Hassan & Hashim, 2011;

Iqbal, Kokash & Al-Oun, 2011; Mohd Noor, 2007; Rahim, 2007; Yusof & Mohamed,

2002).

In regards to privatisation, Goh (2005) argues that the government has

encouraged the private sector to play a more active role in providing more places for

students to enrol for their tertiary studies. The encouragement is based on some issues

like the failure of public universities to provide enough places for increasing demand

for tertiary education. With limited spaces to cater for enormous numbers of qualified

students, private higher education is an alternative for students to pursue their tertiary

education. Goh (2005) also suggested that the establishment of private higher

educational institutions complements the public institutions in providing greater

access to a wider spectrum of students, especially in producing professional

individuals knowledgeable in science and technology.

The government has also allowed private university colleges and foreign

universities to offer joint degrees and has invited foreign universities to import

international branch campuses, set up management and information technology

instruction centres and conduct individual courses to be taught in Malaysia institutions

(Ng, 2005).

27

The government influence on universities, its teaching staff, and students are

also considered to be an imposition (Oii, 2005). One example of this is the

appointment of vice chancellors in public universities as political appointees made at

the pleasure of the Minister. This practice has proven to be susceptible to patronage

whilst posing a hindrance for the academia to be promoted to the Vice Chancellor's

post based on academic qualification and experience (Mohamed, 2006). The

government has revealed that they are presently reviewing procedures and legislation,

to find ways of giving universities more room to flourish academically (Hassan and

Hashim, 2011) and empowered these universities to ensure they can take direct

control of their actions. This empowerment strategy is being implemented through

the corporatisation of public universities and privatisation of higher education.

These reforms of corporatisation and privatisation have actually generated

much anxiety among academics. As Sawyer et al. (2007) suggest that, when

universities became corporate universities, the constraints that defined universities

changed. Sawyer et al. (2007) also argue that the values of the old university, of

scholarship, truth and freedom, were replaced by the values of the market. Education

became a product, the university a firm, and the university system an industry.

Hassan (2001) argues when universities became corporate universities,

academic staff feared that universities’ authorities would give excessive attention to

entrepreneurial activities at the cost of academic quality and freedom of the

universities. Hence, this means that academics will not only work as an academic, but

also as salespersons or marketing people in order to support the survival of the

university’s business-driven education (Hashim, 2012; Kamsari, 2007; Knight &

Morshidi, 2011).

2.2.1.4 Improving the Quality of Higher Educational Sector

Increasingly tertiary educators are being called to account for the quality of

education that they provide (Firdaus, 2006). The Former Prime Minister of Malaysia,

Mister Ahmad Badawi stated that the government wants all higher education

institutions to upgrade the quality of courses and programs offered by them and

further help the government achieve the mission of forming Malaysia as the regional

educational hub (Utusan Malaysia, 2007b). To maintain the educational quality of

public universities, the Ministry of Higher Education has scheduled a three year audit

28

of universities curriculum effective from 2007 (Rahim, 2007). This three year audit

period is perceived as relevant as it could help universities to sustain the quality of

courses offered by them and match their curriculum to the globe’s rapid development

and needs (Rahim, 2007).

The quality of private higher education is also the centre of attention for the

Ministry of Higher Education. Started in June 2007, the Ministry had introduced a

national rating system as a benchmark for all private education institutions in

Malaysia (Utusan Malaysia, 2007b). The former Minister of Higher Education, Mister

Mohamed points out that this rating system will be implemented to measure the

quality of private institutions and act as a tool to scrutinise the progress of private

education institutions (Mohamed, 2006).

2.2.1.5 Government’s Support for Higher Educational Sector

In regards to the importance of education and training as key components of

socio-economic policies, the Malaysian government has strengthened the national

educational policy with several objectives (United Nations, 2003):

‘These are to expand the capacity of educational establishments; to increase

access to all forms of education; to strengthen the delivery of services; and to

improve the general quality of education’.

To achieve these objectives, the government has implemented several

education strategies and programs from pre-school to tertiary education. The

government has subsidised the educational sector especially for higher education. In

regards to the direction of development funds, emphasis was always directed to the

economic (infrastructure development) and social (education, health & public

housing) sectors rather than the security of nation (Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007, United

Nations, 2003). Between 2006 and 2010 the Government allocated RM220 billion for

overall development expenditures under the Ninth Malaysia Plan. About 37.5 per cent

from the total allocation was distributed to the development of the social sector which

includes education due to its importance in developing the nation’s skilled workforce

and preparation in becoming a knowledge-based country (Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007).

The large monetary allocation for education arose from the government’s aim to focus

on the development of the nation’s human capital which is one of the prerequisites of

29

attaining higher value-added growth based on the recent trends and development of

knowledge and technology.

2.2.1.6 Human Capital Development via Higher Educational Sector

Human capital is the key driver of growth in the knowledge-based economy

and will determine the competitive position of the nation (Economic Planning Unit,

2007). Consequently, the Malaysian government has long realised the needs to boost

the skills of its workforce if it is to avoid long-term economic problems

(Ramakrishnan, 2005). In tandem with the needs of developing its human capital

capability, the Higher Education Ministry stressed the importance of higher education

institutions in producing more capable and skilled knowledge workers. The former

Minister of Higher Education once argued that ‘…in knowledge-based economies,

universities must have academic staff that are well qualified, well trained, and

committed to academic and research work’ (Mohamed, 2006).

The successful development of the knowledge-based economy will, therefore,

largely depend on the quality of the education and training system (Raja Zainal

Abidin, 2007). The government continually reviews the education system including

the curriculum, teaching methods, enrolment at the tertiary level and the quality of the

teaching profession to enable it to meet the manpower requirements of the

knowledge-based economy (Economic Planning Unit, 2007).

The government also acknowledged the need to provide a greater access to

tertiary education in order to achieve the target of a 40 per cent participation rate of

the age group 17-23 years by 2010 (Kamsari, 2007). The Government explained that

enrolment at the post-graduate level would be expanded to meet the target of 25 per

cent of the total enrolment at degree level by 2010. The Government planned to

implement a special programme to increase the enrolment of postgraduate students,

particularly in science and technology programs.

As argued by Kamsari (2007) in the preceding section, enrolment in tertiary

education institutions at all levels between 2006 to 2010, is expected to increase to 1.3

million in 2010 with 32.3 per cent at first degree and 35.8 per cent at diploma levels.

To cater for the projected increase in demand for associate professionals and

technicians, more courses, particularly at the diploma level were offered (Kamsari,

2007).

30

2.2.1.7 University-Industry Collaboration

Collaboration between higher education and industry is deemed as beneficial

to the universities themselves (Mohd Noor, 2007). The former Minister of Higher

Education, Mustapha Mohamed, believed that it would help universities to ensure that

curriculum and research are abreast of current needs and perceived as an intelligent

co-operation to develop highly knowledgeable workers as needed by industry (Utusan

Malaysia, 2007a). Based on this belief, the government encourages all public and

private universities to collaborate with the industry especially those operated in the

fields related to science and technology (Mohd Noor, 2007). For example, the

Multimedia University of Malaysia (one of the Malaysian private university) joined

with the multinational companies of Nokia and Microsoft, with these two

multinational companies investing about RM10 million each to set up their own

market-driven laboratories in the university (Shankar, 2005).

In tandem with this collaboration, university academics are also encouraged to

do sabbatical leave or practical training in the industries where their universities have

collaboration. Academics were also encouraged to congregate their knowledge and

skills with the technology provided by the industries in order to develop new findings

or products which benefits both universities and industries. It is believed that with

these hands-on practical training programs, collaboration and congregation between

university academics and the industries will gain multiple benefits for the academics

themselves and not only generate better outcomes for the market-driven industries,

but also promulgate better knowledge for their students and society in general

(Arshad, 2007; Mohd Noor, 2007).

2.2.1.8 Cultivating Research and Development in Higher Education

Other than the teaching, research output is considered as the other sphere of

universities’ output. Thillaisundaram (2003) asserts that research output refers to all

additions to knowledge produced by a university or higher education institution in the

form of publications, patents, and development work.

Research and development (R&D) of universities is one of the main priorities

of the Ministry of Higher Education (Mohamed, 2006). With strong monetary and

31

physical support given by the ministry, public and private universities are pursuing a

more dynamic role in R&D programs across various fields of study. For instance, the

government has formed a working committee comprising researchers from UPM,

UKM, UM and USM to formulate a concept paper on the establishment of research

universities (RU). The vision of an RU expands existing philosophies and good

practices to enhance the overall education system and contribute to nation building.

The mission of RU is to be an engine of growth of the nation where scholars and

students exchange ideas as well as conduct research in a conducive environment that

nurtures exploration and creativity and discover knowledge and create wealth, leading

towards an improved quality of life (University Putra Malaysia, 2007).

Such efforts on R&D activities by these institutions, has produced greater

developments for those universities and also for the growth of the Malaysian

economy, through commercialisation and marketing of research findings and

products. The constitution of a RU has ultimately helped in producing more

academics that are capable of being world-class researchers. The Ministry of Higher

Education has declared that by year 2012, at least 75 per cent of academics in each

public university will have obtained PhDs (Utusan, 2007a). This is a challenge as for

example, in UKM as at December 2006 there was only 37.8% of overall academic

staff who were PhD holders. The proportions of PhD holders in other public

universities were more or less at the same percentage as UKM. It is believed that

those academics with PhD will initiate higher numbers of quality researchers and will

contribute to significant developments in the university and the nation.

Higher education plays critical roles inexploring knowledge and producing the

latest findings and innovation. Through these roles it was anticipated that higher

education will contribute actively in generating the development of industry, upgrade

the knowledge value among the society and enhance the nation’s productivity (Ali,

2003).

The introduction of the Intensive Research in Priority Area (IRPA) Programs

in mid-1980s under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)’s

supervision is an important initiative to allocate resources in areas that are identified

as critical for further development (Ali, 2003). Through this IRPA program, public

universities are invited to apply for research funding especially in the area as

identified by MOSTI (Economic Planning Unit, 2007). In between the years 2000 to

2005, a total of 2,139 projects valued at RM836.9 million were approved under the

32

IRPA program (Economic Planning Unit, 2007). An assessment of 1,233 IRPA

projects implemented during the mentioned years indicated, among others, the filing

of 544 intellectual property rights such as patents, industrial designs, and copyrights

as well as 4,872 publications including national and international papers (Ali, 2003).

IRPA program is one financial support given by the government for academic

staff members in public universities to conduct research and development activities

accordingly to their area of expertise. Furthermore, academics that have been granted

an IRPA grant will be able to commercialise their research and increase the linkages

between the university and industrial sector. Hassan (2001) argued that the

government aimed to use the linkages so to transfer research activities in universities

to be marketable and commercialised products in the industrial market.

Mahmud (2007) argued that universities and academics had been questioned

by the industry about their weak contribution to the industrial society. Industry

claimed that most of the research and development programs conducted by academics

have not really been applicable and do not have an acceptable commercial value for

the industry. Many have urged universities to upgrade, maximise and disseminate

outcomes of their academic research to become useful products for the public

(Mohamad, 2002; Mohd Noor, 2007). This is a challenge to university academics

especially those in the critical areas of interest such as science and technology in order

to satisfy the increasing needs of relevant outcomes and products as not only desired

by the industry but also for the benefits of the society.

2.2.2 Summary for Drivers and Challenges of Malaysian Higher Education

Academics in higher education of Malaysia are expected to uphold the

nation’s aspiration of achieving a world class education level and produce multi-

skilled and competent individuals (Hashim, 2012). On top of that, academics are an

important player in nurturing the government’s aims for the harmonisation and

oneness of its people that will then carry the aspiration of the nation towards being a

fully developed country by the year 2020. Their contribution in disseminating

knowledge and cultivating the value of research and innovation has always been

scrutinised by the government, the industry and the society. As evidenced by recent

key policy decisions, education in the country is being liberalised, as educational

33

achievement is seen to be the cornerstone from which national prosperity can be

constructed (Knight and Morshidi, 2011: 603).

To summarise, global and national continuous development in education

produces significant challenges for higher education and academics. Issues such as

globalisation, internationalisation of education, societal and industrial demands, and

government intervention policies are some of the variables that affect higher

education and academics (Lasanowski, 2009; Arshad, 2007). The socio-economic and

political drivers of higher education might have a significant influence on academics’

attitudes and behaviours. The impacts of these key issues and drivers on academics

need to be vigilantly managed by the government and the universities, as academics

may view them as burdens rather than as challenges.

In particular, higher education academics attitude of job satisfaction is

important to the higher educational sector in Malaysia generally, and to the

universities primarily. As reported in past research, it was consistently found that ‘job

satisfaction has significant impact on academics’ excellent performance, high

commitment, and low turnover’ (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009: 125). On top of thatjob

satisfaction is crucial and may contribute more than one can expect towards

achieving universities’ and the higher educational sector’s strategic goals and in the

contribution of significant impact on assisting the development and sustainability of

the sector (see Abdulsalam & Mawoli, 2012; Adekola, 2012; Hashim, 2012). Simply

said, happy academics will in turn be highly performed and highly committed

workers, and the universities and the higher education sector will benefit in terms of

having quality academics.

2.3 Literature Reviews of Job Satisfaction and Theories

2.3.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction

For one to know the meaning of job satisfaction is not difficult. Researchers

and scholars had searched for the meaning of job satisfaction through systematic

investigations, field works, and meta analyses. However, ‘even though many

researchers define job satisfaction, the definitions vary’ (Brown, 2008: 19).

As argued by Brown (2008), ‘to grasp the meaning of construct like job

satisfaction, it seems logical to look at how it is defined in the literature’ (p19). There

34

is a high level of agreement amongst management scholars on the meaning of job

satisfaction. Typically, job satisfaction is conceptualized as a general attitude toward

an object (Oshagbemi, 1999). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as ‘a pleasurable

or positive emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one's job experiences’. Job

satisfaction describes how comfortable a person is with his or her job. It is an

attitudinal variable ‘that reflects how people feel about their jobs overall as well as

various aspects of their jobs’ (Spector, 1996:214).

Locke (1976) asserts that job satisfaction can be considered as ‘a global

feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or

facets of the jobs’. Job satisfaction is ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one’s job and job experience’ (Graham and Messner,

1998). Job satisfaction is also perceived as ‘a favourableness or unfavourableness

with which employees view their work’ (Castle, 2006). According to Spector (1996),

job satisfaction is ‘an attitude toward the job and involves affective, cognitive and

behavioural components about various related aspects such as pay, promotion, work

tasks, co-workers, supervisors, and others’. Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as

the psychological disposition of people toward their work. Vroom (1995) asserts the

concept of job satisfaction as interchangeably with job attitudes where he explains:

‘The terms job satisfaction and job attitudes are usually used interchangeably.

Both refer to affective orientations on the part of individuals toward work

roles that they are presently occupying. Positive attitudes toward the job are

conceptually equivalent to job satisfaction and negative attitudes toward the

job are equivalent to job dissatisfaction’.

Herzberg (1976) found that ‘job attitudes are a powerful force and are

functionally related to the productivity, stability, and adjustment of the industrial

working force; and the positive effects of high attitudes are more potent than the

negative effects of low attitudes’. Thus, delineation of the factors that produce a

positive attitude about work is important to the improvement of job performance

(Newby, 1999).

According to Okpara (2006), job satisfaction refers to ‘a person’s constructive

poignant response to a particular job, and it is an affective reaction to a job that results

from the person’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired,

anticipated or deserved’ (p225).

35

Brown (2008) asserts that job satisfaction from an employee’s standpoint, is a

desirable outcome in itself. On the other hand, from an organisational and managerial

standpoint, ‘job satisfaction is important because of its impact on absenteeism,

turnover, and pro-social citizenship behaviour, which manifest itself in helping co-

workers and customers, and being more cooperative’ (Brown, 2008:21).

In general, therefore, job satisfaction refers to an individual's positive

emotional reactions to a particular job. It is an affective reaction to a job that results

from the person's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired.

2.3.2 Contemporary Theories of Job Satisfaction

Regardless of the authors, it is generally agreed that ‘job satisfaction involves

the attitudes, emotions, and feelings about a job, and how these attitudes, emotions

and feelings affect the job and the employee’s personal life’ (Stemple, 2004:9). There

are many theories of job satisfaction proposed by many scholars and researchers.

These theories have been developed through extensive research and studies

predominantly by western researchers, then either supported or rejected by others in

the field of work motivation and behavioural research (Stemple, 2004). The studies of

job satisfaction can be traced back to the Hawthorne studies, conducted by Elton

Mayo at the Western Electric Company where a series of experiments on factory

workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932, and Hoppock’s monograph Job

Satisfaction in 1935 (see Gruneberg, 1976; Hoppock, 1935; Vroom, 1995). Mayo

discovered that job satisfaction increased through employee participation in decisions

rather than through short-term incentives (Adekola, 2012:3). Whilst Hoppock (1935)

discovered job satisfaction to be measured with simple questions such as ‘Choose one

of the following statements which best tells how well you like your job: I hate it, I

dislike it, I do not like it, I am indifferent to it, I like it, I am enthusiastic about it, I

love it’.

Present theories of job satisfaction fall into two major groups, content theories

and process theories (see Legg, 2004; Newby, 1999; Stemple, 2004). Content theories

were concerned with the specific identity of what it is within an individual or his/her

environment that energizes and sustains behaviour. In other words, what specific

things motivate people (Stemple, 2004). Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy and Herzberg’s

36

Hygiene-Motivator Theory are among the major content theories (see Legg, 2004;

Sentovich, 2004; Stemple, 2004).

In contrast, process theories try to explain and describe the process of how

attitude and behaviour are energized, directed, sustained, and stopped (Klein, 2007).

To explain and describe attitudes and behaviour, these theories ‘try to define the

major variables that are important for explaining motivated people’ (Stemple, 2004).

Gruneberg (1976) argues that process theorists see job satisfaction as being

determined not only by the nature of the job and its context within the organisation,

but also by the needs, values and expectations that the individuals have in relation to

their job. Among the major theories in this group are Work Adjustment Theory,

Valence-Satisfaction Theory and Equity Theory (see Goff, 2004; Legg, 2004,

DeMato, 2001; Waskiewicz, 1999).

2.3.2.1 Content Theories

a. Needs/Fulfilment Theory

In 1943, Maslow described human motivation as a hierarchy of needs whereby

the satisfaction of one level of needs triggers the movement to the next higher level of

needs (Maslow, 1954). According to Maslow (1954: 24-25) the theory is based on a

number of suppositions. First, ‘man’ is always wanting – a complete state of

satisfaction is rare and, even if it occurs, is of short duration. Second, a satisfied need

no longer motivates, and so the next level of needs must be focused on. Third,

movement from one level of needs to the next is usually a subconscious one.

The physiological needs represent food and water and the air we breathe; once

these have been satisfied our requirements for shelter, ‘a roof over our heads’ must be

met (Newby, 1999; Porter et al., 2006; Brown, 2008). Then, attention is turned to

‘ensuring continued survival by protecting oneself against physical harm and

deprivation’ (Brown, 2008: 21), and this is identifies as safety and security needs.

Once supplies of these vital commodities are met, ‘after time we will yearn for

the interaction of others, sometimes known as ‘affiliation’ needs’ (Legg, 2004:31).

According to Brown (2008), this third level relates to people’s social and gregarious

needs, not the quasi-physical needs of the first two levels. Brown (2008) argues that

‘this level of affection and social activities needs reflects people’s need for

37

association or companionship, for belonging to groups, and for giving and receiving

friendship, affection, and love’ (p22).

Self-esteem and status needs must then be met. This fourth level needs

substantiate by Brown (2008) as the need for self-respect or self-esteem results from

awareness of one’s importance to others. According to Newby (1999) and Porter et al.

(2006), this needs level represents satisfaction, feelings of achievement and

responsibility.

Lastly, self-fulfilment can also be termed ‘self actualisation’, meaning

reaching a zenith of self-development, a sense of purpose and satisfaction (Porter et

al., 2006). This needs level is also argued as the highest level of needs and includes

developing one’s potential. It is evidenced by the need to be creative and the need to

have opportunities for self-expression and self-fulfilment.

All these five identified needs by Maslow can be applied into the context of

work. From the past studies, researchers had associated several key organisational

factors with Maslow’s needs levels (Mohd Noor, 2004). Firstly, the organisational

factors of pay, pleasant working conditions, and comfortable cafeteria are among the

needs of workers that are associated with physiological needs. Secondly, in the sphere

of safety needs, the issue of safe working conditions, company benefits, and job

security, are several of the compulsory yet critical factors that workers require of the

organisation.

Thirdly, rewards like love, affection, and belongingness which could be

categorised under social needs were associated with the organisational factors of

cohesive work group, relationships with peers and superiors, friendly supervision,

caring management, and professional associations. Fourth, the factors of social

recognition, job title, high status job, and feedback from the job itself, are related to

the esteem needs. Fifth, in terms of self-actualisation that related to the rewards like

growth, advancement, and creativity, several organisational factors that related to the

particular needs are for instance challenging job, opportunity for creativity,

achievement in work, and advancement in the organisation.

Maslow’s theory has received widespread recognition because of ‘its intuitive

logic and ease of understanding’ (Jones & Page, 1987: 14), however, the theory has a

number of deficiencies, despite its apparent relevance (Porter et al., 2006). For

instance, Jones and Page (1987) argue that there is little empirical support for the

simplistic need –deficiency or need- gratification notions which purport to explain the

38

movement through the hierarchy, and exceptions are rife in practice. Further, ‘a

person may be trying to satisfy a number of needs at any one time, not everyone will

seek satisfaction of the needs in the order suggested; individual and cultural

differences will play their part’ (Porter et al., 2006:88). Even though hardly any

research evidence was discovered in support of the theory, it enjoys wide acceptance

(Brown, 2008: 22).

This theory relates very much to the study of job satisfaction of Malaysian

academics in higher educational sector. The issues such as what kind of organisational

factors have significant value and influence the academic staff’s job satisfaction, are

of interest in the current study. Hence, this theory helps in terms of clarifying and

associating specific needs of university academics in Malaysia with the investigated

organisational factors which in the current study are the antecedents of academics’ job

satisfaction.

b. Hygiene-Motivator Theory

One of the most often researched and cited theories of job factors related to

satisfaction is Frederick Herzberg’s Two Factor Hygiene and Motivator Theory

(Sentovich, 2004). The central proposition of Herzberg’s theory is that the causes of

job satisfaction are qualitatively different from the causes of job dissatisfaction (Mohd

Noor, 2004). To reach his original theoretical standpoint, Herzberg interviewed 203

American ‘middle class’ male engineers and accountants (Herzberg, 1971). His

questions were ‘Think when you were most happy at work. What made you feel

happy?’ and ‘Think when you were most unhappy at work. What made you feel

unhappy?’ Through these two questions, the interviewees were asked to relate times

when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present job or any previous job,

and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events giving rise to that

positive or negative feeling. Herzberg (1971) asserts:

‘The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to

satisfaction (achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and

advancement) are mostly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job

dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dissatisfiers (company policy and

administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working

conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction’.

39

Two lists emerged based on consistent responses given by the participants of

the interviews:

Table 2.1: Herzberg’s Hygiene and Motivator Factors (Source: Herzberg, 1971)

Satisfiers (motivators) Dissatisfiers (hygiene factors)

Achievement

The job itself- interesting and fulfilling work

Promotion

Responsibility

Recognition for good work (achievement)

Opportunity to grow in knowledge and capability

Company policy

Supervision

Level of salary

Interpersonal relations

Working conditions

The use of the term ‘hygiene factors’ has a medical resemblance because they

represent elements of the job which if removed or improved do not bring health but

merely prevent bad health (Sentovich, 2004). By removing the dissatisfiers, ‘the

individual does not experience satisfaction’ (Porter et al., 2006:89). The

dissatisfaction merely comes to an end and the individual’s feeling about this element

moves to a mid point (Sentovich, 2004). The elements that have a positive effect on

the individual are the satisfiers or motivators. These are the intrinsic motivators, and

are related to job content while the dissatisfiers are extrinsic and are related to job

context (Mohd Noor, 2004; Newby, 1999).

It is important to note that Herzberg does not suggest that the motivators are

any more important than are the dissatisfiers. However, the latter ‘can act as a brake

on the former’ (Porter et al., 2006:89). Unless the dissatisfiers are dealt with, the

individual will find it difficult to enjoy satisfaction from the motivators. This can be

explained by way of a continuum depicted in Figure 2.2:

Dissatisfiers – not deal with: Dissatisfiers: Motivators are provided:

Employee remains dissatisfied

Dealt with – employee’s

motivation moves mid

point

Provided – employee’s

motivational needs met

Figure 2.2: Herzberg’s continuum of satisfiers-dissatisfiers

(Source: Herzberg (1971) and Mohd Noor (2004)).

40

The current study refers to Herzberg’s Hygiene-Motivator Theory to draw

attention to several key antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian

public higher education institutions. Although Herzberg (1971) theorised that there

were some antecedents identified as satisfiers or motivators and some as dissatisfiers

or hygienes factors, the current study has no intention of exploring any discrepancies

between these two categories of antecedents. The current study aims to investigate the

antecedent variables as proposed by Herzberg in terms of their abilities to work as

contributors towards the state of happiness with several aspects at the workplace

among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions.

2.3.2.2 Process Theories

a. Work Adjustment Theory

The theory of work adjustment as proposed by Loftquist, Dawis and Kanter in

1967, is based on the concept of correspondence between the individual and

environment (Stemple, 2004). As accentuated by DeMato (2001), the theory was

developed at the University of Minnesota as part of the Work Adjustment Project of

the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation in an endeavour to understand the

problems of adjustment to work. This theory includes a basic assumption that the

individual seeks to achieve and to maintain correspondence with the environment.

While many kinds of environments exist to which an individual must relate, achieving

and maintaining correspondence with one environment may affect the correspondence

with other environments (Stemple, 2004).

According to this theory, work then represents one such environment in which

one must relate (Stemple, 2004). Satisfaction then indicates the correspondence

between the individual and the work environment and formulated a theory of

vocational psychology that was based on the idea that the individual is a responding

organism (Stemple, 2004). As individuals respond to their environment, their

responding becomes associated with reinforcers in the environment.

Waskiewicz (1999) argues that the theory of work adjustment can be

summarised in the following statements:

1. Work is the interaction between an individual and a work environment.

41

2. The work environment requires that certain tasks be performed, and the individual

brings to the job the skills needed to perform the tasks.

3. The individual, in return, requires compensation and preferred working conditions

for performance.

4. For interaction to be maintained, the environment and the individual must continue

to meet each other's needs. The degree to which the needs of each are met is referred

to as correspondence.

5. Work adjustment is the process of achieving and maintaining correspondence and is

indicated by the satisfaction of the individual with the work environment and the

satisfactoriness of the environment with the individual.

Hence, in regards to the above five statements, work adjustment theory was

put as a pertinent indicator for academics in Malaysian public higher education

institutions as they ‘act, react, and come to terms with their work environment thus

adjusting to the work environment’ (Stemple, 2004), which is their universities. In the

current study- in regards to work adjustment theory- an academic is assumed to be

satisfied with his/her job, if he/she corresponds positively with the university’s

working environment, or vice versa.

b. Valence-Satisfaction Theory

Valence-Satisfaction Theory was put forward by Victor Vroom. This theory

examines motivation from the perspective of why people choose to follow a particular

course of action (Vroom, 1964). Vroom introduces three variables which he calls

Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality. Valence is the importance that the

individual places upon the expected outcome of a situation (Vroom, 1964).

Expectancy is the belief that output from the individual and the success of the

situation are linked (Vroom, 1964). Instrumentality is the belief that the success of the

situation is linked to the expected outcome of the situation (Vroom, 1964). In another

words instrumentality is ‘the degree of confidence individuals have that, if the task is

performed successfully, they will be rewarded appropriately’ (Goff, 2004:15). Figure

2.3 illustrates the conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory:

42

Figure 2.3: Conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory

(Source: Robbins and Coulter, 1999:193)

At first glance this theory would seem most applicable to a traditional-attitude

work situation where the answer for the question of ‘how motivated the employee is?’

depends on whether they want the reward on offer for doing a good job and whether

they believe more effort will lead to that reward (Stemple, 2004). However, it could

equally apply to any situation where someone does something because they expect a

certain outcome (Vroom, 1995). Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-

interest in rewards but about the associations people make towards expected outcomes

and the contribution they feel they can make towards those outcomes (Legg, 2004).

The current study refers to the proposition of Valence-Satisfaction Theory by

Vroom (1964) to look at how academics in Malaysian public higher education

institutions relate between the expected outcomes and the contribution in terms of

performance they feel that they can make towards the outcomes.

c. Equity Theory

Back in 1965, John Stacey Adams articulated a construct of equity theory on

job motivation and job satisfaction, where the way individuals are treated at work

affects their behaviour and attitude to work. Equity theory is founded on the

assumption that workers expect justice, fair play, or equity in treatment by their

employers, and an employee seek a fair balance between what he or she puts into the

job and what he or she gets out of it (DeMato, 2001; Okpara, 2006; Waskiewicz,

1999). According to Guerrero, Andersen and Afifi (2007), much like other established

EXPECTANCY must be

high. Employees must

perceive that if they try

hard, they can perform at

a high level.

INSTRUMENTALITY must

be high. Employees must

perceive that if they perform at

a high level, they will receive

certain outcomes.

EFFORT PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

VALENCE must be high.

Employees must desire or

want the outcomes they will

receive if they perform at a

high level.

43

theories of motivation and job satisfaction, equity theory acknowledges that subtle

and variable individual factors affect each person’s assessment and perception of their

relationship with their relational partners.

Adams’ equity theory also proposes that ‘workers compare their own

outcomes, received from their jobs and the organisations, measured against the inputs

they contribute (outcome-input ratio)’ (Goff, 2004:15). Waskiewicz (1999) proposed

that individuals compare their inputs and outcomes to those of some relevant other

person in determining whether or not they are treated fairly. Outcomes include pay,

fringe benefits, opportunities for advancement, status, job security, and anything else

that workers desire and can receive from the organisation (Robbins & Coulter, 1999).

Adams describes inputs as ‘employee special skills, training, education, work

experience, effort on the job, time, and anything else that workers perceive that they

contribute to an organisation’ (Goff, 2004:15). Workers compare their own

expenditure and contribution of effort, knowledge, experience, and skills for instance

with those of others in their workplace or field and evaluate whether what they are

receiving is equitable in comparison (Sentovich, 2004). If the workers perceive equity

in the comparison it will gives satisfaction to them. According to Robbins and Coulter

(1999):

‘Equity exists when an individual worker’s outcome or input ratio equals the

outcome or output ratio of the referent. Because the comparison of the ratios is

what determines the presence or absence of equity (not the comparison of

absolute levels of outcomes and inputs), equity can exist even if the referent

receives more than the individual worker who is making the comparison’

(p194).

On the other hand, inequity or lack of fairness exists when ‘outcome or input

ratios are not proportionally equal and this will then create tension and unpleasant

feelings for an employee’ (Robbins & Coulter, 1999:194). When the employees

determine an unequal outcome-input ratio, this can create job dissatisfaction and may

motivate the workers to restore equity (Goff, 2004). When the outcome-input ratios

are equal, workers experience job satisfaction and are motivated to maintain their

current ratio of outcomes and inputs. Workers can also raise their inputs if they want

their outcomes to increase. Figure 2.4 illustrates the conditions of equity and inequity:

44

Individual Referent Example

Equity Outcomes = Outcomes

Inputs Inputs

An academic contributes more inputs (time

and effort) to his job and receives

proportionally more outcomes (a promotion

and a pay raise) than his referent receives

Overpayment

Inequity

Outcomes > Outcomes

Inputs Inputs

(greater than)

An academic contributes the same level of

inputs to his job as his referent but receives

more outcomes than the referent receives.

Underpayment

inequity

Outcomes > Outcomes

Inputs Inputs

(less than)

An academic contributes more inputs to his job

than his referent but receives the same

outcomes as his referent.

Figure 2.4: Conditions of Equity and Inequity

(Source: Robbins & Coulter, 1999:194)

2.3.3 The Implication of Job Satisfaction Theories on the Theoretical

Framework of the Study

Job satisfaction theories were extensively referred to in past research as a

pertinent barometer to reflect the state of happiness or job satisfaction among workers

in various fields of occupations. According to DeMato (2001), many theories have

been proposed to ‘explain the concept of job satisfaction, and early attempts focused

on understanding what contributed to worker’ job satisfaction’ (p22). In this study,

several theories of job satisfaction were associated and implemented into the

theoretical framework of the study as a means to explain the current state of job

satisfaction among academics in public higher education institutions, particularly in

Malaysia.

First, as stated in the preceding section, the current study refers to Herzberg’s

Hygiene-Motivator Theory as a means to highlight several key antecedents of job

satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. Even

though, Herzberg (1971) theorised that there were some antecedents identified as

satisfiers or motivators and some as dissatisfiers or hygienes factors, the current study

has no intention of exploring any discrepancies between these two categories of

antecedents. The current study attempted to highlight whether or not these antecedents

45

as proposed by Herzberg also work as contributors towards the state of happiness of

academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions at their workplaces.

Secondly, the current study also looks at process theories to help in explaining

the attitudes and behaviours of academics in Malaysian public higher education

institutions. This is in accordance with Gruneberg (1976)’s argument that process

theorists see job satisfaction as being determined not only by the nature of the job and

its context within the organisation, but also by the needs, values and expectations that

the individuals have in relation to their job.

Thirdly, in regards to the attempt of using process theories, the study refers to

the theory of work adjustment proposed by Loftquist et al. (1967) in order to highlight

the possibility that academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions

correspond tactfully with their working environment to create the state of satisfaction

in their jobs. Based on the theory it is assumed that the academics perform tasks

required by the work environment using their knowledge and skills, and in return,

they necessitate compensation and working conditions that are at least equal to what

they have contributed to the organisation.

Fourthly, the current study refers to the proposition of Valence-Satisfaction

Theory by Vroom (1964) to look at how academics in Malaysian public higher

education institutions relate between the expected outcomes and the contribution in

terms of performance they feel that they can make towards the outcomes.

Finally, the current study also takes into account the proposition in Adams’

equity theory that workers compare their own outcomes measured against the inputs

they contribute toward the organisation, and in the same time evaluate whether this

equally in comparison with the other workers in the same organisation. It is assumed

that equality in input-output terms will eventually impacts an academic’s state of

satisfaction where one will experience satisfaction or happiness if he/she is rewarded

for works they did equally like what has been given to others, or vice-versa.

2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction

Of all the possible employee attitudes, job satisfaction ‘has remained the most

focal construct in organisational behaviour’ (Oyler, 2007:10). The search for

identifying the causes and consequences of job satisfaction in various fields of jobs is

46

an ongoing area of interest for academics, social scientists and managers (Arif, Iqbal,

Islam & Hussain, 2012; Barnett, Marsh & Craven, 2005; Brown, 2008; Ch’ng et al.,

2010; Ghazi et al, 2010; Oshagbemi, 1997; Ranz, Stueve & McQuistion, 2001).

Individual characteristics, job characteristics and organisational characteristics are

commonly studied as among the antecedents of and correlates with job satisfaction

(see Abdullah, 1992; Ali, Shaharudin & Anuar, 2012; Bashir, Jianqiao, Jun,

Ghazanfar, & Khan, 2011; Gabbidon, & Higgins, 2012; Oshagbemi, 1997b;

Oshagbemi, 1997a; Okpara, 200; Tanner, 2007). Work-life balance is another

significant variable studied for its relationship and correlation with job satisfaction

(see Gabbidon, & Higgins, 2012; Haar, Spell & O’Driscoll, 2005; Heraty, Morley &

Cleveland, 2008; Marcinkus, Whelan-Berry, and Gordon, 2007; Nikandrou,

Panayotopoulou & Apospori, 2008). Work attitudes such as intention to leave, job

stress and organisational commitment, and behaviour such as organisational

citizenship behaviour, actual turnover and work performance, have been studied as

correlates with or consequences of job satisfaction (Adekola, 2012; Tett & Meyer,

1993; Seashore & Taber, 1975; Spector, 1997).

The current study identified several antecedents of job satisfaction based on

the work done in past research. This study on the job satisfaction of academics in

higher educational setting also regarded government and universities policies and

support (GUPS) as a pertinent antecedent of job satisfaction of academics. The

discussion on the issue pertaining to GUPS explained thoroughly in the preceding

sections, through a number of indicators found in the literature of higher education

sector globally, and in Malaysian Higher Educational sector particularly. The

subsequent sections will discuss the antecedents of job satisfaction specifically on the

organisational antecedents, work-life balance, and demographic characteristics.

2.4.1 Organisational Factors

Many studies on organisational factors as the determinants of job satisfaction

are available. Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist (1967) have listed 20 factors of

job satisfaction and half of those are organisational factors such as advancement, co-

workers, compensation, supervision human relations, recognition, company policies,

and security. Meanwhile, Spector (1997:3) argues that there are ‘nine focal

47

organisational determinants of one’s job satisfaction which are pay, promotion,

supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers,

nature of work, and communication’. According to Murray (1999), these nine

antecedents of job satisfaction are the main factors that represent ‘a cluster of

evaluative feelings about the job’. Spector (1997) and Murray (1999) provide

descriptions and examples of these nine organisational antecedents which are detailed

in Table 2.2 together with empirical studies using these antecedents and their findings.

48

Table 2.2: Organisational Antecedents of Job Satisfaction

Antecedent

Description

Example

Studies Using The Antecedent

Findings

Pay Satisfaction with pay and

raises

amount and fairness or

equity of salary

Mazlan (1992), Spector (1997), Mohd

Noor (2004), Akpofure et al.(2006)

Pay is a significant and positive antecedent of

job satisfaction

Ch’ng, Chong and Nakesvari (2010) Salary (pay) is significant in determining the job

satisfaction of lecturers in Penang state,

Malaysia

Brown (2008) Respondents have a moderate satisfaction with

salary

Oshagbemi (1999), Graham and

Messner (1998) Koustelios (2001),

Barrett and Yates (2002), Akpofure et

al.(2006), Donnelly (2006)

Respondents are not satisfied with pay

Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) Teachers in Cyprus chose this career because of

the high satisfaction towards salary (and several

other factors)

Promotion Satisfaction with promotion

opportunities

opportunities and fairness

of promotions

Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist

(1967)

Promotion is one of the important determinants

of job satisfaction

Akpofure et al.(2006), Spector (1997)

Promotion is significantly and positively

correlated with job satisfaction

Ch’ng, Chong and Nakesvari (2010) Promotion opportunities are positively

significant in determining the job satisfaction of

lecturers in Penang state, Malaysia

Graham and Messner (1998),

Oshagbemi (1999)

Respondents are not satisfied with promotion

49

Supervision Satisfaction with the person’s

immediate supervisor

fairness and competence at

managerial tasks by one’s

supervisor

Brown (1993), Spector (1997), Ch’ng,

Chong and Nakesvari (2010)

Supervision is correlated positively with job

satisfaction

Brown (2008) Respondents were satisfied with their

supervisors

Donnelly (2006) Satisfaction with supervision is high among

academic advisers in higher education in the

USA

Oshagbemi (1997a) 70 per cent of the respondents among university

academics were satisfied with their supervisors

Wazkiewicz (1999) Supervisory relations was the only two factors

(other than ability utilization) found to be

related to job satisfaction

Fringe Benefits Satisfaction with fringe

benefits

insurance, vacation,

compensation, and other

fringe benefits

Spector (1997), Artz (2010)

Fringe benefits is a significant and positive

determinant of job satisfaction

Graham and Messner (1998)

Respondents have a low satisfaction with fringe

benefits

Borooah (2009)

The greater the weight that one placed on this

antecedent, the more likely one was to be

dissatisfied

Alam and Mohammad (2010)

Nursing staffs in Malaysia were moderately

satisfied with compensation

Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) Teachers in Cyprus chose this career because of

the high satisfaction towards holidays they

obtained (fringe benefits)

Contingent Rewards Satisfaction with rewards (not

necessarily monetary) given

for good performance

sense of respect,

recognition, and

appreciation

Brown (1993), Spector (1997)

Contingent rewards is a significant and positive


Brown (2008) Respondents have a moderate satisfaction with

50

recognition

Donnelly (2006) Satisfaction with recognition is very low among

academic advisers in higher education in the

USA

Operating

Conditions

Satisfaction with rules and

procedures

policies, procedures, rules,

perceived red tape

Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist

(1967)

Company policies (operating conditions) is one

of the important determinants of job satisfaction

Brown (2008) Respondents have moderate satisfaction with

policy and administration

Oshagbemi (1999), Koustelios (2001)

Operating conditions is a dissatisfying factor

Co-Workers Satisfaction with co-workers perceived competence and

pleasantness of one’s

colleagues

Spector (1997), Graham and Messner

(1998)

Co-workers is a significant and positive


Borooah (2009) People who spent time socially with their co-

workers were less likely to have low levels of

satisfaction

Brown (2008) Respondents were satisfied with their co-

workers

Donnelly (2006) Academic advisers in the USA are most

satisfied with co-workers

Nature of Work Satisfaction with the type of

work done

enjoyment of the actual

tasks themselves

Akpofure et al.(2006)

Work tasks are the most satisfying factor among

college academics in Nigeria

Communication Satisfaction with

communication within the

organisation

sharing of information

within the organisation

(verbally or in writing)

Spector (1997), Mohd Noor (2004) Communication is a significant and positive


Donnelly (2006) Communication is strongly related with job

satisfaction

51

Recent research explores identified organisational factors in different contexts

of education workers. For instance Oshagbemi (1997a) through his study of

academics in UK higher education indicated that about 70 per cent of the respondents

which were selected among university academics were satisfied with their co-

workers’ behaviour, the job itself and supervisor. In the same study, Oshagbemi

(1999) also found that higher education academics were dissatisfied with pay and

promotion.

Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) examined job satisfaction and motivation

among academics in Cyprus. Findings of their study indicated that Cypriot academics

chose this career because of the salary, the hours and the holidays associated with this

profession. Wong and Wong (2005) in their study on the promotion criteria and

satisfaction found that the level of satisfaction with promotion is relatively low for

Hong Kong academics. A study among academic advisers in the USA by Donnelly

(2006), among other things, indicated that academic advisers are most satisfied with

benefits and co-workers, but least satisfied with salary, recognition, and support for

career.

Then, a study among 230 randomly selected colleges of education educators in

Southern Nigeria by Akpofure et al. (2006) found that educators were mostly satisfied

with their work load, followed by co-workers, supervision, and promotion. In this

study, it is also found that educators expressed a high degree of dissatisfaction with

their present pay.

Brown (2008) in her study among Northern Caribbean University’s full-time workers

found that the respondents were neutral about their level of satisfaction with their

jobs. She also found that the respondents to be closer to a neutral response including

organisational policy and administration, working conditions, salary, recognition, and

growth. The study also found that relations with supervisors, the work itself, relations

with co-workers, achievement, responsibility, and relations with students were

included as satisfactory factors among respondents. Gabbidon and Higgins (2012)

examined job satisfaction among members of the American Society of Criminology

(ASC) and the Academy of Criminal justice Sciences (ACJS) in the United States.

The findings of their study revealed that those criminology academics with more

journal article publications, and devote more time to family and friends, had high job

satisfaction.

52

In the Malaysian context, Mazlan (1992) carried out a survey on selected 43

headmasters of primary schools in the Malacca State in Malaysia and found that there

were significant positive relationships between factors like responsibility,

accountability, salary and pay and affiliation among headmaster and staff with job

satisfaction. Mohd Noor (2004) in his study among academics in a secondary school

in Johore State found that teachers had a high satisfaction with the aspects of

supervision and nature of work. Teachers were also found to be moderately satisfied

with pay, promotion, and fringe benefits. It was also reported that teachers have a low

level of satisfaction with communication.

Santhapparaj and Syed’s (2005) study of job satisfaction of academics in

private universities in Malaysia found that pay, promotion, working conditions, and

managerial support had a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction. On the

other hand, fringe benefits have negative effect on academics’ job satisfaction.

Accordingly, Ch’ng et al. (2010) in their investigation among lecturers in three

established private colleges in Penang State, Malaysia found that management

support, salary and promotion opportunities are significant in determining the job

satisfaction.

The above findings of satisfaction on numerous organisational antecedents of

job satisfaction among academics globally and in Malaysia particularly, reveal the

importance of having a thorough investigation among Malaysian higher education

academics’ about their state of satisfaction on organisational antecedents.

This exertion is important as currently there is no evidence found in the

literature to have identified the state of satisfaction on all of the nine organisational

antecedents comprehensively among academic staff in Malaysian higher educational

sector, as proposed by Spector (1997) which are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and

communications. This is the gap that the current study is trying to fill, where the effort

of having the latest state of satisfaction on a comprehensive group of organisational

factors and its association with the general state of job satisfaction among higher

educational academic staff is needed in order to help the universities particularly and

the higher education sector generally, in generating the system of retaining the

academics satisfaction, happiness, commitment, and assisting the universities and the

higher educational sector to achieve their strategic goals.

53

2.4.2 Demographic Characteristics

There is numerous evidence that demographic characteristics are associated

with job satisfaction. In the current study, based on the findings in the literature,

several demographic characteristics and its association with job satisfaction were

determined. These include age, gender, tenure, and others.

a. Age

According to Stemple (2004) age is an important variable because ‘employees

of any organisation usually vary in ages, and thus age is often studied by researchers

looking at job satisfaction’. For instance, Brown and Peterson (1993) in their meta-

analysis on antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction found that age is an

important indicator of job satisfaction.

Koustelios’ (2001) study of Greek teachers suggested that personal

characteristics including age were significant predictors of different aspects of job

satisfaction. Castiglia (2006) in her study of job satisfaction among academics in a

private college also found that age is a significant personal factor on job satisfaction.

Bashir et al. (2012) also found that job satisfaction among academic faculty in 23

public universities in Pakistan varies with the demographic factor of age.

According to Brown (2008), mixed evidence exists in the literature concerning

the relationship between age and job satisfaction. Herzberg was among the first to

report’ the U-shaped relationship between age and job satisfaction’ (Brown, 2008:34).

Brown (2008) further asserts that Herzberg and colleagues suggested that while

morale is high among young workers, it tends to go down during the first few years of

employment; then the low point is reached when workers are in their middle and late

20s early 30s. After this period, satisfaction steadily climbs with age (Brown, 2008:

34). However, a study among Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996), found age to

be linearly related to job satisfaction.

In studies pertaining to age conducted by Newby (1999) among respondents in

the USA, by Noordin and Jusoff (2009) in Malaysia, and by Toker (2011) in Turkey,

older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger ones. Conversely,

54

these findings are inconsistent with Akpofure (2006)’s finding, where Akpofure found

that academics in Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older. Tu et

al. (2005) found that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of age

for full-time Taiwanese and Chinese academics at higher education in the overall job

satisfaction. Similarly in a different setting, Sarker et al. (2003) found no significant

difference in term of age of overall job satisfaction among hotel employees in

Thailand.

Hence, it is anticipated that the current study will contribute to fill the gap in

the literature specifically on the current state of association between the demographic

characteristic of age and job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian higher

education.

b. Gender

There were many studies exploring the association between gender and job

satisfaction. For example, Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009) finding on employees in

small and medium enterprises in Australia, found that females are more satisfied with

their jobs compared to males. A study of correlates of job satisfaction among

Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996) found that gender did not influence job

satisfaction.

In the realms of the educational sector, a study by Oshagbemi (2000) indicated

that gender does not affect the job satisfaction of university teachers in the UK

directly. On the other hand, Koustelios’ (2001) study on Greek teachers suggested that

personal characteristics including gender were significant predictors of different

aspects of job satisfaction. In comparing the level of job satisfaction between different

gender, Newby (1999)’s finding on academics in the USA reported that females have

higher job satisfaction than males. A study of job satisfaction among educators in

Colleges of Education in Southern Nigeria by Akpofure, Ikhifa, Imide and Okoyoko

(2006) concluded that generally female and male educators were not satisfied with

their job.

In the Malaysian educational sector specifically, Mohd Noor (2004) in his

study of teachers’ job satisfaction at a secondary school in Johore state, concluded

that female teachers had a higher level of overall job satisfaction than male teachers.

Noordin and Jusoff (2009) in their study among academic staff in a Malaysian

55

university, found that there were no significant differences between male and female

academics with regard to overall job satisfaction, and they conclude that overall job

satisfaction is not a function of gender (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009).

c. Tenure (in current university)

Very few attempts have been developed to investigate the relationship of

tenure, particularly tenure among academics in the university setting and job

satisfaction. For instance, Oshagbemi (2000) in his study among university academics

in the UK, Sarker et al. (2003) in their study among hotel employee in Thailand, and

Toker (2011) in his study among a university academics in Turkey found significant

differences of job satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies.

In the Malaysian higher education setting, literature investigating the

relationship between tenure and job satisfaction is sparse. Noordin and Jusoff (2009)

for instance, explored the association between age, gender, race, and basic salary with

overall job satisfaction of academic staff in a Malaysian university without

investigating tenure. Hence, it would be an interesting component of the current study

to use tenure as one of the demographic characteristics that predict job satisfaction of

academics in Malaysian higher education institutions.

d. Other Demographic Factors and Job Satisfaction

A study by Oshagbemi (1999a) among the UK academics found that

academics and their managers differ significantly on the levels of satisfaction which

they derive from most aspects of their jobs. Sources of these differences are identified,

and the general conclusion is that management position, characterised by seniority in

age, rank and length of service, affects university teachers' level of job satisfaction

positively. Furthermore, through the findings of the study there was ‘a significant

negative correlation between education level and academic rank and the various facets

that determined job satisfaction’ (p108).

In relation to the management position, Lynch and Verdin (1983), found that

academics without a management position had a significantly higher overall job

satisfaction compared to their counterparts. On the contrary, Ranz et al. (2001) in their

study among psychiatrists in New York found that medical directors experience

56

significantly higher job satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This particular

finding is also dissimilar with that of Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009), where non-

managerial employees of small and medium enterprises in Australia reported lower

level of job satisfaction than managers.

In the Malaysian context, a study of correlates of job satisfaction among

Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996) found that marital status did not influence

job satisfaction. Conversely, year of education and experience were found to be

linearly related to job satisfaction (Saiyadain, 1996).

Through Ghazali’s (1979) survey, it is known that job satisfaction among

school teachers is significantly different based on demographic variables e.g. school

size, school location (either in urban or suburban area), and teacher’s academic

qualification.

All in all, based on the literature on the association between demographic

characteristics and job satisfaction, the current study attempts to add to the job

satisfaction literature particularly in Malaysian higher educational sector the expanded

demographic scope of the higher education academics population.

2.4.3 Work-Life Balance

a. The Conception of Work-Life Balance

Work-life balance has always been a concern of those interested in the quality

of working life and its relation to broader quality of life (Guest, 2002). It is believed

that balancing a successful career with a personal or family life can be challenging

and impact on a person’s satisfaction in their work and personal life’s roles (Broers,

2005).

Nevertheless, we need to understand the definition underlying the work-life

balance concept. Dundas (2008:7) argues that ‘work-life balance is about effectively

managing the juggling act between paid work and all other activities that are

important to people such as family, community activities, voluntary work, personal

development and leisure and recreation’. While Sverko, Arambasic and Galesic

(2002:282) assert that the meaning of work-life balance is:

57

‘…an elusive term used to describe a state of harmonious or satisfying

arrangement between an individual’s work obligations and his or her

personal life. We define it as appropriate arrangement of role-time

commitments that allows for good functioning at work and at home, with

minimum role conflict and maximum satisfaction’.

Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw (2003) define work-life balance as the extent to

which an individual is equally engaged in – and equally satisfied with – his or her

work role and family role, thus, ‘employees who experience high work-life balance

are those who exhibit similar investment, time and commitment, to work and non-

work domains’ (Virick, Lily & Casper, 2007: 465).

Work-life balance is a pertinent issue across all types of employees. As

Karatepe and Tekinkus (2006:175) assert ‘single parents and other single individuals

may have same load of difficulty in balancing work with children, friends, relatives,

and other commitments outside the organisation’.

Dundas (2008:7) explains that work-life balance is a significant issue in

organisation nowadays because ‘the need for balance is becoming more recognised

because of the jobs we do, how we do them and the people employed to have

changed’.

Dundas further adds that particularly, more women and sole parents are in the

workforce, and households now have to juggle the work arrangements of more than

one paid job. Moreover, the workforce is ageing fast and becoming more diverse,

businesses must compete globally to find skilled workers, standard working hours are

no longer suitable for customers or staff, and technology have blurred the distinction

between work and personal time.

Heraty, Morley and Cleveland (2008) argue that work-life relationships are

complex and multidimensional and remain an important ongoing academic and social

policy area that requires multidisciplinary and multi-level investigation and

collaboration. In assessing the work-life balance issue, it is important to understand

not only the underlying assumptions about work and life respectively, but also ‘about

the relationship between the two’ (Eikhof, Warhurst and Haunschild 2007:329).

Three broad sets of overlapping issues pertaining to work-life balance policy

and practice identified by Guest (2002) are those concerned with developments at

work that might be seen as causing the problem of work-life imbalance, those relating

58

to life outside work that might be viewed as consequences of work-imbalance and

those concerning individuals and their lives outside work that give rise to the need to

address the challenge of work-life balance as a contemporary policy and practice

issue.

b. Association of Work-Life Balance with Job Satisfaction

Work-life balance has important consequences for employee attitudes towards

their organisations as well as for the lives of employees (Scholarios and Marks, 2004).

Guest (2002:256) believes that ‘it is possible to investigate the trend of work-life

balance and its developments which influence the well-being and job outcomes of

employees at work’.

Numerous studies have been conducted searching for the association between

work-life balance and attitudinal job outcomes such as job satisfaction (see Doherty &

Manfredi, 2006; Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton & Swart 2005; Scholarios &

Marks, 2004; Virick et al., 2007; Youngcourt, 2005; Zin, 2006). According to Moore

(2007), the extant literature on the subject of work-life balance tends to make numbers

of assumptions and one of those is that improving an organisation’s work-life balance

leads not only to greater productivity but to greater company loyalty and job

satisfaction. Samad (2006) asserts that previous studies revealed that work and life

factors are found to be an important concern of both individuals and organisations.

This is due to ‘the conflict that arises from work and life/family factors will lead to

stress, resulting in negative consequences such as job and family dissatisfaction’

(Samad, 2006:53).

Sverko et al. (2002) studied work-life balance and its antecedents and

consequences among Croatian employees. Among the results was that work-life

balance dissatisfaction led to higher job stress and low life satisfaction. Howard,

Donofrio and Boles (2004) in a study among police personnel concluded that work-

family conflict which reflects work-life balance issues is significantly related to

satisfaction with the job in general, pay, supervision, promotion, work, and co-

workers. The findings from this study also revealed that increased levels of work-

family conflict are negatively related to several different facets of employee job-

related satisfaction and that responsibilities in the workplace and responsibilities at

59

home cannot be perceived as mutually exclusive entities in employees’ lives (Howard

et al., 2004:387-388).

Karatepe and Tekinkus’s (2006) study among front-line employees in Turkish

retail banks indicates that work-family conflict leads to detrimental job outcomes such

as job satisfaction. This is due to the nature of boundary-spanning positions where the

respondents in the study are often susceptible to heavy workloads and inflexible work

schedules (Karatepe & Tetinkus, 2006). In these circumstances, the authors assert that

front-line bank employees in the study are more unlikely to balance work obligations

with family and/or social commitments. The findings of this study also demonstrate

that work-family conflict does not have any significant negative effect on affective

organisational commitment. However the results of the path analysis reveal that ‘job

satisfaction mediates the impacts of work-family conflict on affective organisational

commitment’ (Karatepe & Tetinkus, 2006:188). The finding of the path analysis by

Karatepe and Tetinkus (2006) is of interest to the current study specifically on the

function of job satisfaction as the mediator between a causal relationship, and this

mediation function will be elaborated further in Chapter 3.

Virick et al. (2007) studied layoff survivors in a high tech company and found

that work-life balance is positively related to job satisfaction. Marcinkus, Whelan-

Berry and Gordon (2007) found that work-life balance was positively correlated with

organisational commitment and job satisfaction in their study among women workers

across three organisations located in the Northeastern and Southeastern, United States.

Premeaux, Adkins and Mossholder (2007) gathered data at seven organisations in the

southern United States from a total of 564 participants to investigate the effectiveness

of family-friendly policies (FFPs) in reducing intertwined conflicts involving work

and family. This included an insurance company, a distribution centre, a

manufacturing organisation, a bank, a utility company, a not-for-profit service

organisation, and a hospital. Premeaux et al. (2007) concluded that a positive work-

family culture and family support may be more instrumental in helping employees

balance work and home roles. Furthermore, Premeaux et al. (2007) found that work-

family conflict and family-work conflict were negatively related to job satisfaction

and organisational commitment.

It is hard to find any research on work-life balance in Malaysia particularly in

the Malaysian higher education sector. One of the scarce attempts at investigating

work-life balance in Malaysia was made by Samad in 2006. Her study determined the

60

association between work related factors and family related factors with the women’s

well-being, mainly job satisfaction and family satisfaction among 500 non-

professional married-working women from the selected manufacturing and electronic

industries Samad (2006) found that work and family related factors are negatively

and significantly related to job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Hence, the current

study is aimed to fill a gap in the literature pertaining to the current work-life balance

issue among academics in the Malaysian higher education and its association with job

satisfaction.

2.4.4 Summary for the Literature of the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction

All in all, job satisfaction was ‘originally studied as a predictor of behaviours

such as performance, absenteeism, and turnover’ (Brown, 2008: 34). More recently,

the interest has shifted toward identifying factors that influence or predict job

satisfaction. Based on the literature reviews and past research on several factors

associated as antecedents for job satisfaction, this study is opt to focus its

investigation on several specific antecedents of job satisfaction. They are

organisational factors (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent

rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and communication) as

identified by Spector (1997), alongside work-life balance and demographic

characteristics.

Based on the past research and work done on the relationships between several

factors opted as the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction, this

study is intended to investigate several selected satisfaction antecedents which

influence job satisfaction specifically among academics in the Malaysian public

higher education setting. In accordance with literature reviews done in the realm of

the relationships between several antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job

satisfaction, several research questions were of interest to the study as stated in

Section 2.6.

61

2.5 Consequence of Job Satisfaction: Intention to Leave

Intention to leave is positively related with turnover (Noor & Maad, 2008). According

to Futrell and Parasuraman (1984), the immediate precursor of actually quitting

appears to be intention to leave. They further argue that this is consistent with past

research on intention to leave, which contends that the individual’s intention is the

most immediate motivational determinant of choice (Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984:

35). A similar contention is argued by Slattery and Selvarajan (2005) when they state

that ‘a surrogate variable for employee turnover is one’s propensity to leave’ (p58).

Numerous studies have supported this contention by presenting empirical

evidence of a strong relationship between intentions and withdrawal behaviour

(Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984). For instance, Price and Mueller (1981) conducted a

longitudinal study of a large sample of registered nurses in USA. The study intended

to estimate a causal model of turnover in organisations. Based on the report of the

study, intention to leave is among the strongest predictors of turnover.

Eberhardt et al.’s (1995) study of registered nurses in private hospitals found

that the registered nurses' age was negatively related to intention to leave, albeit the

magnitude of the correlation was small. Marital status was positively related to nurses'

intention to leave, while married registered nurses reported lower likelihood of

quitting their jobs. Level of nursing education was not related to job satisfaction or to

intention to leave (Eberhardt et al., 1995). In the study, they also found that job

satisfaction was also negatively correlated with intention to leave.

In Roberts and Chonko’s (1994) study, female academics were found to have a

significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male counterparts. However,

this finding is dissimilar to Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009) study among small and

medium enterprises workers in Australia where they found that there was no effect

based on different gender on the intention to leave.

Bartram, Casimir, Djurkovic, Leggat and Stanton’s (2012) study at a public

regional hospital in Australia found a low level of intention to leave the organisation

among 183 participated nurses. Dalession et al. (1986) argue that in future research,

more attention should be given to the direct and indirect influences of variables on

intention to leave as opposed to the actual act of turnover. This is because, from the

62

employer’s standpoint, intention to leave is maybe a more important variable than the

actual act of turnover and if the precursors to intention to leave are better understood,

the employer could possibly institute changes to affect this intention (Dalession et al.,

1986:261). However, once an employee has left, there is little the employer can do

except assume the expense of hiring and training another employee (Dalession et al.,

1986).

An individual’s intention to leave their organisation has been included in

numerous attitudinal models (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). For instance, Futrell

and Parasuraman (1984) found that pay, promotion, work itself, co-workers, and

supervision were negatively correlated with intention to leave among salespeople in a

national pharmaceutical firm in the USA. According to Deery and Jago (2009),

research into the antecedents of labour’s intention to leave and turnover has,

traditionally, focused on the impact that job attitudes such as job satisfaction have on

an employee’s intention to leave.

In the Malaysian higher educational setting, retaining quality academic staff has

remained a concern in institutions of higher learning for a long time (Hassan &

Hashim, 2011; 82). According to Hassan and Hashim (2011) this can be reflected

through a study on academics’s level of intention to leave the university. In this realm,

they conducted a study among academics in four public higher education institutions

in Malaysia, and found that academics had a low level of intention to leave the

universities.

Mustapha and Daud (2012) conducted a pilot study on the interrelationship

between intention to leave with perceived performance appraisal effectiveness and career

commitment,, among academics in a Malaysian higher educational institution. They

found that intention to leave is significantly related with its investigated antecedents

and recommended that further studies should be done focusing on the level of

intention to leave among academics in Malaysian universities.

Hence, evidenced by the findings of studies in the literature, several focal questions

are of interest to the current study pertaining to antecedents of job satisfaction, overall

job satisfaction and intention to leave as stated in Section 2.6.

63

2.6 Conceptual Framework for the Study

As stated by DeCuir-Gunby (2008:127), the theoretical or conceptual

framework reflects researchers’ personal stance toward the topics they are studying, a

stance based on personal history, experience, culture, and gender perspectives. One’s

theoretical perspective influences the types of research questions that are asked, the

way data are collected, and the manner in which data are interpreted (DeCuir-Gunby,

2008). The conceptual framework for this study is depicted in Figure 2.5.

The constructed conceptual framework explained all the major concepts,

constructs, relationships, variables and direction of the study as recommended by past

studies (see and DeCuir-Gunby, 2008; Konting, 1993; Sekaran, 2000; Talbot, 1992).

This framework is essential to the research process because it provides the foundation

that led to the creation of this study’s research questions and the collection and

analysis of data (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

There are three levels of variables included in the conceptual framework of the

current study, which are the antecedent variables of job satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave. In accordance with the current development of

public higher education in Malaysia, together with the past research evidenced in the

literature, this study includes eleven antecedent variables of job satisfaction which are

government and universities’ policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work,

communication, and work-life balance. Except government and universities’ policies

and support which have been discussed thoroughly in Chapter 1, studies that show

findings of each of these variables could be found in the preceding sub-sections.

These eleven variables are assumed to have positive relationships with overall

job satisfaction, where an increase of the value in these variables will increase the

value of overall job satisfaction. Intention to leave is included in the conceptual

framework as the selected outcome or consequence of overall job satisfaction among

academics in the Malaysian public higher education institutions. The conceptual

framework of the current study also draws together the relationships between the

antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. It is

assumed that all antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction have

negative relationships with intention to leave, where an increase of value in these

variables will decrease the value of intention to leave.

64

Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for the Study

Note: (+) represents positive relationship assumption, (-) represents negative relationship assumption

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

Demographics Backgrounds:

Age, Gender, Tenure, Management Position

Overall Job

Satisfaction

Organisational

Factors

Work -Life Balance

Government and

Universities Policies and

Support

Antecedents of

Job Satisfaction

Intention to

Leave

Pay

Promotion

Supervision

Fringe Benefits

Contingent Rewards

Operating Conditions

Co-workers

Nature of Work

Communication

65

2.7 Summary of Research Questions

Based on the literature reviews of the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave, this section summarises all the questions for the

current study as mentioned in the preceding sections:

1. What are the levels of all job satisfaction antecedents among academics in

public higher education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be

answered in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and support),

Chapter 5 (organisational antecedents), Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents),

and Chapter 7 (work-life balance).

2. Are there any differences of satisfaction with antecedents of job satisfaction

based on gender, age, tenure, and management position? This question will be

answered in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and support),

Chapter 5 (organisational antecedents), Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents),

and Chapter 7 (work-life balance).

3. What is the level of overall job satisfaction among academics in public higher

education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be answered in Chapter

8.

4. What is the level of intention to leave among academics in public higher

education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be answered in Chapter

8.

5. Are there any differences of overall job satisfaction based on gender, age,

tenure, and management position? This question will be answered in Chapter

8.

6. Are there any differences of intention to leave based on gender, age, tenure,

and management position? This question will be answered in Chapter 8.

7. What are the relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall

job satisfaction, and intention to leave? This question will be answered in

Chapter 8.

8. Does overall job satisfaction mediate the relationships between each of the

antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave? This question will be

answered in Chapter 8. Furthermore, in order to answer Question 8, eleven

hypotheses were developed as follows:

66

a) The relationship between government and universities’ policy satisfaction

(GUPS) and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall

job satisfaction (OJS).

b) The relationship between pay and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially

mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).

c) The relationship between promotion and intention to leave (ITL) will be

partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).

d) The relationship between supervision and intention to leave (ITL) will be


e) The relationship between fringe benefits and intention to leave (ITL) will

be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).

f) The relationship between contingent rewards and intention to leave (ITL)

will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).

g) The relationship between operating conditions and intention to leave (ITL)

will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).

h) The relationship between co-workers and intention to leave (ITL) will be


i) The relationship between nature of work and intention to leave (ITL) will


j) The relationship between communication and intention to leave (ITL) will


k) The relationship between work-life balance and intention to leave (ITL) be


9. Do demographic backgrounds fully moderate the relationship between overall

job satisfaction and intention to leave? This question will be answered in

Chapter 8. Moreover, with the purpose of answering Question 9, four

hypotheses were developed as follow:

a) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

fully moderated by personal demographic of age

b) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

fully moderated by personal demographic of gender

c) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

fully moderated by personal demographic of tenure

67

d) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

fully moderated by personal demographic of management positions

2.8 Conclusion

This chapter has presented in-depth literature reviews of background, drivers and

challenges of higher education in Malaysia to help explain the emergence needs of

investigating the state of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian higher

education institutions particularly in the public sector.

Subsequently, the chapter explained job satisfaction and together with its

antecedents and intention to leave as the consequence factor. This chapter extensively

discussed the antecedents of job satisfaction evidenced by literature reviews on

various past research, other than government and universities policies and support.

They were nine organisational variables (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,

contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and

communication) as proposed by Spector (1997), and work-life balance. The chapter

also elaborated demographic backgrounds as control variables for all of the other

investigated variables.

Intention to leave is argued as one of the main consequences of job

satisfaction. Hence, past research done on the construct of intention to leave as a pre-

cursor of actual leave were explored in this chapter. Also, based on the literature

reviews, the chapter constructed the conceptual framework for and the summary of

research questions of the study. Next, Chapter 3 outlines details of the research

paradigm and design, methods and instruments used in the study, assessment of

validity and reliability, ethical considerations, background of the qualitative study and

quantitative study, and measure of normality and reliability of the quantitative study.

68

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines details of the research paradigm and design, methods and

instruments used in the study, assessment of validity and reliability, ethical

considerations, background of the qualitative study and quantitative study, and

measure of normality and reliability of the quantitative study. The organisation of the

chapter is as depicted in Figure 3.1.

The implementation of the mixed methods research design used in this study is

extensively elaborated in Section 3.2, along with arguments on the differences of the

three major paradigms of research methods and reasons of why this study chose to

employ a sequential mixed methods design. The mixed methods research design

model is then broadly discussed in Section 3.3. It involves 5 main sequential

components which includes the purpose of the study, theoretical framework, research

questions, methods and validity. Flow of data collection methods employed in the

study is also described thoroughly in the section which encompasses a detailed

description of the ethical considerations, commencement of the qualitative study, pilot

study and quantitative study.

All instruments used in this study are elaborated on together with the rationale

for the implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data collected in the study, their

thematic and statistic analysis and software are elaborated in Section 3.4. Section 3.5

elaborates the background of the qualitative study, while background for the

quantitative study is detailed in Section 3.6. Findings of normality tests of variables

used in the quantitative study are presented in Section 3.7. It is followed by the

elaboration of measures of reliability of all scales used in the quantitative study in

Section 3.8. Section 3.9 explains non-response bias analysis and common method

variance (CMV) in the quantitative study. The conclusion of the chapter is provided in

Section 3.10.

69

Section

Description

The section introduces the chapter and gives an overview

of the next sections.

The section discusses the mixed methods research design

and selection of a paradigm employed in the current

study.

The section describes the mixed methods research

design model used in the current study.

The section details both qualitative and quantitative

data collected in the study, thematic and statistical

analysis implemented, and related software used for

data analysis in the current study.

The section details the background of the qualitative

study.

The section elaborates on the background of the

quantitative study.

The section presents findings of normality tests of

variables used in the quantitative study.

The section elaborates on measures of reliability of scales

used in the quantitative study.

The section presents the explanation of non-response bias

analysis and common methods variance implemented in

the quantitative study.

The section concludes the chapter.


3.1

Introduction

3.2

Research Paradigm and Design

3.3

Mixed Method Research Design

Model

3.4

Data Analysis

3.9

Non-response Bias Analysis and

Common Method Variance in

the Quantitative Study

3.5

Background of the Qualitative

Study

3.6

Background of the Quantitative

Study

3.7

Normality Tests Used in the

Quantitative Study

3.8

Measure of Reliability in the

Quantitative Study

3.10

Measure of Reliability in the

Quantitative Study

70

3.2 Research Paradigm and Design

Research methodology is defined by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:21) as:

‘...a broad approach to scientific inquiry specifying how research questions

should be asked and answered. This includes worldview considerations,

general preferences for designs, sampling logic, data collection and analytical

strategies, guidelines for making inferences, and the criteria for assessing and

improving quality.’

In the social sciences, research methodology is taken to be ‘a discipline whose

function is to examine the underlying rationale for the methods of research which

produce valid knowledge’ (Clough & Nutbrown, 2002: vii). Research methodology

aims to prescribe what are justifiable methods and procedures that ought to be used in

the generation and testing of valid knowledge (Clough & Nutbrown, 2002). DeCuir-

Gunby (2008) asserted that various qualitative and quantitative practices can be used

to generate and test the validity of knowledge.

Over the past two decades, much of the discussion in social science research

methods has focused on the distinction between qualitative research and quantitative

research (Morgan, 2007:30). The distinction between these two research approaches

has been debated broadly, alongside the emergence of an approach called mixed

method research which according to Morgan (2007) combines, integrates, or mixes

qualitative and quantitative methods.

‘The dominant and relatively unquestioned methodological orientation in the

social and behavioural sciences for much of the 20th

century was the quantitative

orientation working within the positivist paradigm’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:4).

The tenet of positivism as pointed out by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:5) is:

‘The view that social research should adopt scientific method, that this method

is exemplified in the work of modern physicists, and that it consist of the

rigorous testing of hypothesis by means of data that take the form of

quantitative measurements’.

71

Kiessling and Harvey (2005) argued that quantitative techniques focus on the

measuring of things that can be counted using predetermined categories which can be

treated as interval or ordinal data and subjected to statistical analysis. Kiessling and

Harvey (2005) further elucidated that predetermined categories are developed,

unavoidably so, through a researcher bias. This type of research assumes that ‘the

predetermined categories also encompass the construct that the statistical analysis is

attempting to evaluate’ (Kiessling & Harvey, 2005:30). Quantitative methods may be

most simply and parsimoniously defined as the techniques associated with the

gathering, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of numerical information (Teddlie

& Tashakkori, 2009). Quantitative methods include experiments and

questionnaires/surveys (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

On the other hand, the use of qualitative research is especially significant in

relation to different cultures whose values, goals and morals vary significantly

(Kiessling & Harvey, 2005; Moran-Ellis, Alexander, Cronin, Dickinson, Fielding

Sleney & Thomas, 2006; Talbot, 1992). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:5) asserted that

qualitative methods may be defined as the techniques associated with the gathering,

analysing, interpreting, and presenting narrative information. Many qualitative

oriented researchers ‘subscribe to a worldview known as constructivism and its

variants’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:6). Constructivists as opposed to positivists

believe that researchers individually and collectively construct the meaning of the

phenomena under investigation (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

Qualitative research argued by Kiessling and Harvey (2005:31):

‘…focuses on people’s experiences and the meanings they place on events,

processes and the environment of their normal social setting. Qualitative data

focuses on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings, so that we

have a starting handle on what “real life” is like…’

Qualitative or thematic data analysis is the analysis of narrative data using a

variety of inductive and iterative techniques, including categorical strategies or

contextualising strategies (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Qualitative methods include

conversation and interviews (individual/ personal/ focus groups), observations and

participation, and archival/documents (Anderson, 2004; DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

Anderson (2004:141) points out although quantitative data can identify the

extent to which things are, or are not, occurring in organisations, it is less helpful in

72

answering the question why things are the way they are. As a means to understand the

related issues and causes, and to search for the value of precision in an investigation,

Konting (1993) argues that combining quantitative with qualitative methods is

essential. Kiessling and Harvey (2005) also emphasise that both quantitative and

qualitative research, performed in concert, will provide researchers with the evidence

needed to evoke an understanding within the global marketplace.

Essentially, as argued by Talbot (1992), by combining a variety of methods

different perspectives can be gained. The combination of more than one type of

research method in a single study is considered as a mixed methods research (DeCuir-

Gunby, 2008). Mixed methods has been defined as a type of research design in which

qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in types of questions, research

methods, data collection and analysis procedures, and/or inferences (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 1998). As stated by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:98), a mixed

methods approach obviously does not exist in isolation and therefore can be ‘mixed

and matched’. The philosophical orientation most often associated with mixed-

methods is pragmatism which Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) defined as:

…a deconstructive paradigm that debunks concepts such as ‘truth’ and

‘reality’ and focuses instead on ‘what works’ as the truth regarding the

research questions under investigation. Pragmatism rejects the either/or

choices associated with the paradigm wars, advocates for the use of the mixed

methods in research, and acknowledges that the values of the researcher play a

large role in interpretation of results. (pp. 7-8).

Table 3.1 below summarises the dimensions and contrasts of the three

different perspectives of research methods. Based on the discussion and comparisons

of the three different types of research designs, this study employed a sequential

mixed-methods design. Sequential mixed design is a design in which at least two

strands occurs chronologically (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:153) either qualitative

data collection techniques followed by quantitative techniques or vice versa in a same

study. According to Teddli and Tashakkori (2009), the conclusions based on the

results of the first strand lead to the formulation of design components for the next

strand and the final inferences are based on the results of both strands of the study.

73

Table 3.1: Dimensions and contrasts of the three perspectives

of research methods

Dimension of

Contrast

Qualitative Mixed Methods Quantitative

Methods Qualitative methods Mixed methods Quantitative methods

Paradigms Constructivism Pragmatism Positivism

Research questions Qualitative research

questions

Mixed methods

research questions

(qualitative plus

quantitative)

Quantitative research

questions; research

hypotheses

Form of data Typically narrative Narrative plus numeric Typically numeric

Purpose of research (Often) exploratory

plus confirmatory

Confirmatory plus

exploratory

(Often) confirmatory

plus exploratory

Role of theory; logic Grounded theory;

inductive logic

Both inductive and

deductive logic

Rooted in theoretical

framework or theory

Typical designs Ethnographic

research designs and

others (case study)

Multi method designs,

such as parallel and

sequential

Correlational; survey;

experimental

Sampling Mostly purposive Probability, purposive

and mixed

Mostly probability

Data analysis Thematic strategies:

categorical and

contextualising

Integration of thematic

and statistical; data

conversion

Statistical analyses:

descriptive and

inferential

Validity Trustworthiness;

credibility;

transferability

Inference quality;

inference transferability

Internal validity;

external validity

There are several advantages in employing mixed methods design in the same

study, particularly a sequential mixed design. First, different methods can be used for

different purposes in a study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2000). Second, mixed

designs help researchers ‘to answer exploratory and confirmatory questions

chronologically in a pre-specified order’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:153).

Specifically in utilising a sequential mixed design, the advantage is that it is less

complicated to be conducted by a solo investigator because it is easier to keep the

strands (quantitative and qualitative data collection) and the studies typically unfold in

74

a slower, more predictable manner (Jang, McDougall, Pollon, Herbert & Russell,

2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

Mixed methods designs also enable triangulation to take place. Triangulation

as defined by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:27) is ‘the combinations and comparisons

of multiple data sources, data collection and analysis procedures, research methods,

investigators, and inferences’. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:99) defined

triangulation as ‘the use of different data collection methods within the one study in

order to ensure that the data are telling you what you think they are telling you’.

Remenyi, Williams, Money and Swartz (1998:142) explain that ‘in business and

management research, the term triangulation refers to obtaining evidence from

multiple sources to ensure that a biased view is not being obtained from one

informant’.

According to Talbot (1992), triangulation has several advantages. The two

main ones in this context being: first, if the differing perspectives illuminate different

aspects of the outcome, then a more holistic, less one-dimensional view can be

obtained; second, the degree of congruence in the results obtained by various methods

provides a useful cross-check on the reliability and validity of each individual method.

3.3 Mixed Methods Research Design Model

Figure 3.2 summarised the research design model adapted from DeCuir-Gunby (2008)

and Hosie (2003) which has been implemented in this study.

Figure 3.2: The research design model

(adapted from Decuir-Gunby (2008) and Hosie (2008))

1. Purpose

2. Theoretical

/Conceptual

Framework

3. Research

Questions

4. Methods 5. Validity

75

3.3.1 Stage 1: Purpose of the Study

The first component of the model is to understand the purpose of the study

(DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Understanding the research purpose is essential ‘because it

allows for the making of proper methodological decisions, which includes the

designing of research questions’ (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008:127). To become certain about

the research purpose, the study began with an extensive literature review which

highlighted key issues. The reason for the literature review is ‘to ensure that no

important variable is ignored that has in the past been found to have had an impact on

the problem’ (Sekaran, 2000:60).

As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, this study first aims to explore the

antecedents of job satisfaction which consist of satisfaction with the government and

universities’ policies and support, satisfaction with the organisational factors and

satisfaction with work-life balance among academics in public higher education

institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aims to examine the interactions

between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction of the

academics. Thirdly, this study aims to investigate the consequences of overall job

satisfaction of academics towards their intention to leave the organisation. Fourthly,

this study also aims to investigate the mediation and moderation effects of several

specific variables in the study in the relationships with academics’ overall job

satisfaction.

3.3.2 Stage 2: Conceptual Framework

After the study had determined the research purpose, it moved forward to the

process of building the study’s conceptual or theoretical framework. As stated by

DeCuir-Gunby (2008:127), the conceptual or theoretical framework reflects

researchers’ personal stance toward the topics they are studying, a stance based on

personal history, experience, culture, gender, and class perspectives. One’s theoretical

perspective influences the types of research questions that are asked, the way data are

collected, and the manner in which data are interpreted (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). The

conceptual framework for this study is as depicted in Figure 2.5 in Chapter 2.

76

The constructed conceptual framework explains all of the major concepts,

constructs, relationships, variables and direction of the study as recommended by past

studies (see Talbot, 1992; Konting, 1993; Sekaran, 2000; and DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

Similarly as described by DeCuir-Gunby (2008), regardless of the representative

medium of the conceptual framework (either visually depicted or textually described),

this framework is essential to the research process. It is because it provides the

foundation that led to the creation of this study’s research questions and the collection

and analysis of data.

3.3.3 Stage 3: Research Questions

Discussion of the factors associated with the antecedents of job satisfaction,

the state of job satisfaction and consequences of job satisfaction which have been

made extensively in Chapter Two contributed to the development of a theoretical

framework which is used as the model for the study. Then, after the theoretical

framework of the study was constructed, research questions were developed which led

to the specification of the topic and variables investigated in the study. Teddlie and

Tashakkori (2009) argued that research questions guide investigations and are

concerned with unknown aspects of a phenomenon of interest. Furthermore,

according to DeCuir-Gunby (2008) in any research study, the keys to designing the

appropriate methods are research questions which help guide the choice of methods.

In this mixed methods study, research questions were guided by the mixed

methods investigations and answered with information that is presented in both

narrative and numerical form as depicted in Table 3.1. Teddlie and Tashakkori

(2009:129) posited that the research question (or questions) works as a dual focal

point that liaises between what was known about the topic before the study and what

is learned about the topic during the study. Table 3.2 summarizes the research

questions and methodological design for this study.

77

Table 3.2: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study

Research Questions Research

Methods Data Analysis Related

Chapters

1. What are the levels of all job

satisfaction antecedents among

academics in public higher

education institutions in

Malaysia?

Qualitative Thematic analysis:

categorising issues discussed

accordingly to each variable

Chapter 4,

Chapter 5,

Chapter 6, and

Chapter 7

Quantitative Statistical analysis: using frequencies, percentages,

and mean values

2. Are there any differences of

satisfaction with antecedents of

job satisfaction based on

gender, age, tenure, and

management position?


categorising issues discussed

accordingly to each variable

Chapter 4,

Chapter 5,

Chapter 6, and

Chapter 7 Quantitative Statistical analysis:

using t-test and ANOVA

3. What is the level of overall

job satisfaction among


education institutions in

Malaysia?


and mean values

Chapter 8

4. What is the level of intention

to leave among academics in

public higher education

institutions in Malaysia?


and mean values

Chapter 8


overall job satisfaction based

on gender, age, tenure, and


Quantitative Statistical analysis: using t-test and ANOVA

Chapter 8


intention to leave based on



Quantitative Statistical analysis: using t-test and ANOVA

Chapter 8

7. What are the relationships

between the antecedents of job

satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to

leave?

Quantitative

Statistical analysis: using Pearson’s correlations

Chapter 8

(Continue)

78


Methods Data Analysis Related

Chapters 8. Does overall job satisfaction

mediate the relationships

between each of the

antecedents of job satisfaction

with intention to leave?

Quantitative

Statistical analysis: - Using multiple regression

analysis consisting of four regression

equations in establishing

mediation - Implementing Mackinnon et

al. (1998)’s ‘Distribution of

Product’ method = ZZ, to

assess for the significance of

mediation effect

Chapter 8

9. Do demographic variables

moderate the relationship

between overall job

satisfaction and intention to

leave?

Quantitative

Statistical analysis: - Using hierarchical regression

analysis by looking at the

interaction term in establishing

moderation - Using Jose (1998)’s special

graph calculation named to

draw interaction term between

different group of

demographic backgrounds

Chapter 8

3.3.4 Stage 4: Methods

After the discussion and construction of the research questions was conducted,

the methodology of the study was planned. This study implemented a sequential

manner of collecting mixed methods data, which started with the first stage, a

qualitative methods study, and then followed by the second stage of the study, a

quantitative methods study. In the first stage, a qualitative study was conducted which

involved interviews with key players of the Malaysian Higher educational sector and

academics from public universities in order to get a feel for the key issues of job

satisfaction, its antecedents and the possible outcomes before embarking on the

second stage of the study.

79

Figure 3.3: Visual model for mixed-methods sequential design procedures

- Descriptive statistics,

missing data, normality,

homoscedasticity,

outliers

- t-test and ANOVA

- Pearson Correlations

-Multiple Regression

Analysis

-Hierarchical Regression

Analysis

Phase

Qualitative Data

Collection

Connecting

Qualitative and

Quantitative Phases

Procedure Product

Qualitative Data

Analysis

Quantitative Data

Collection

Integration of the

Qualitative and

Quantitative Results

- Key-person Interviews

- Focus Group Interviews

- Translating &

transcribing

- Coding & thematic

analysis

- Within case & across

case theme development

-Using NVivo software

Quantitative Data

Analysis

Pilot study

- Piloting all scales

Online Survey

- Using SurveyMonkey.com

as the online survey tool

- Data screening

(univariate, multivariate)

- Descriptive and

inferential analyses

- Moderation and

mediation analyses

-Using SPSS 17.0 software

- Interpretation and

explanation of the

quantitative and qualitative

results

- Codes and themes

- Similar and different

themes categories

- Text data (interview

transcripts, documents)

- Selections of established

questionnaires

- Development of variable

of satisfaction with

government and

universities policies and

support

- Getting alpha value for

scales reliability

- Numeric data

- Discussion

- Implications

- Future research

-Developing &

employing new &

established scales

based on themes

emerged in

qualitative analysis

80

Quantitative data collection in the second stage consisted of a pilot study of a

survey conducted through emails, and a self-administered quantitative study through a

web survey tool - SurveyMonkey. To explain the flow of each phase of data collection,

procedure, and product used in this study, a visual model for mixed-methods

sequential design procedures is designed following the steps proposed by Ivankova,

Creswell and Stick (2006). The model is depicted in Figure 3.3 above. It is important

to understand that the data is presented in the following chapters (Chapter 4 to

Chapter 8) not per the phased study (as per Figure 3.3), but in accordance with Table

2.2 thereby answering the research questions.

3.3.4.1 Ethical Considerations

Before each of the study phases commenced, an application to gain the

university’s approval to conduct those studies was made. The Faculty Human Ethics

Committee (FHEC) assessed the qualitative study’s application as complying with the

National Health and Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical

Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with University guidelines on Ethics

Approval for Research with Human Subjects. They granted approvals, first, for the

qualitative study which was conducted between October and November 2007, and for

the pilot and quantitative studies which were conducted between November 2008 and

March 2009. These ethics approvals are included in Appendix A.

3.3.4.2 Qualitative Study

The qualitative study, conducted between October and November 2007 aimed

to investigate the context of job satisfaction of academics in the Malaysian public

higher education sector. It also aimed to investigate the significant determinants of job

satisfaction among those academics and its possible consequences or outcomes. The

study was conducted qualitatively via interview method. Spector (1997:5) asserts that

it is possible to get more extensive information in an interview and respondents can

elaborate the issues that they are discussing. Furthermore, the respondents have a

wider chance of generating their own antecedents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

based on their opinions, knowledge and experiences. The research took the form of

81

semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews with seventeen interviewees

comprised of sixteen academics from three public universities and a former Minister

of Higher Education Ministry of Malaysia.

Purposeful self-sampling and snowball sampling techniques were

implemented in this qualitative study. It was necessary in order to find participants

who are knowledgeable, are able to provide balanced perspectives, and will contribute

to the theoretical framework of the study (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Based on the steps

for this sampling technique proposed by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:176)

and DeCuir-Gunby (2008:130), formal invitations were sent to several key-person and

academic staff in several Malaysian universities to take part in the study. The consent

had been given by all of the key-person and focus-group interviewees. The former

Minister of Higher Education for instance granted the permission to mention his name

in the thesis, but in accordance to the university’s Human Ethics requirements, the

Minister’s name is kept to be anonymous and will be represented as the former

Minister of Higher Education throughout the whole thesis.

Two types of interviews were conducted for this study- key-person interviews

and focus-group interviews. Key-person interviews consisted of semi-structured

interviews with eight key players of higher education who are also academics except

one participant who is a former Minister of Higher Education. Besides the minister

the other key people being interviewed were a Deputy Vice Chancellor, a Director of

a university’s branch, a Deputy Director of Academic Affairs of a university’s branch,

a Dean, a Director of Public Relations Department of a public university cum senior

lecturer, and a Coordinator of Academic Program of a public university’s branch.

The key-person sample was considered essential in respect of their knowledge

of university and government policies, together with their overall role and knowledge

in coordinating academic programs and academic staff’s affairs. Focus-group

interviews consisted of two semi-structured interviews with nine academics from two

public universities.

The interviews were semi-structured and conducted informally to ensure that

information given by the interviewees is in a personal capacity and does not represent

the views of their organisation. Different sets of questions were delivered to both key-

person and focus group. Key-persons were asked to give responses about their own

job satisfaction and their opinions about their academic staff’s satisfaction with each

of the key factors, while focus group respondents were only asked to answer each

82

question that related to themselves. Both key-person and focus group interview

questions are included in Appendix B.

3.3.4.3 Quantitative Study

a. Pilot Study

According to van Teijlingen and Hundley (2001), the term pilot study is used

in two different ways in social science research. It can refer to so-called feasibility

studies which are small scale versions, or trial runs, or done in preparation for the

major study (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Baker (1994, in van Teijlingen &

Hundley, 2001) emphasises that ‘a pilot study can also be the pre-testing or ‘trying

out’ of a particular research instrument’. The pilot study undertook in this research

was a quantitative based method.

Firstly, initial informal contacts were made with eight prominent academics in

Australian and Malaysian universities through emails to get their feedback on the

overall content and context of the instruments used in this study. A full set of the draft

questionnaire which contained all scales related to this study was emailed to them

along with an open ended question asking for their responses on improving the

goodness of the questionnaire. This method of Delphi technique was implemented to

get all the instruments revised by experts in the area of this study (refer to Grisham,

2009 and Howze & Dalrymple, 2004). All of these academics replied and gave

constructive comments and recommendations on the questionnaire. The researcher

then made a thorough revision based on each of these experts’ recommendation and

made several alterations to the questionnaire.

Secondly, a pilot study was conducted prior to the commencement of the

research survey. According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:203), a pilot study or

feasibility study is ‘a stage of a project in which researcher or researchers collect a

small amount of data to ‘test drive’ research procedures, identify problems in data

collection protocols, and set the stage for the actual study’.

This pilot study is aimed to seek validity and reliability of all the instruments

used in the research survey. Snowball sampling technique has been used in this pilot

study. Following Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill’s (2000) steps for this snowball

sampling, these initial contacts had been asked to identify further cases among their

83

colleagues, and then ask these new cases to identify further new cases and so the

sample snowballs. Thirty eight out of 50 respondents had returned the questionnaire

along with their constructive comments and recommendations on how to improve the

face and content validity of the survey. Respondents in the pilot study were not

included in the actual quantitative study. Reliability of all scales was measured using

an internal consistency indicator, which is Cronbach’s Alpha.

b. Online Survey

For practicality purposes, the quantitative study was conducted using an online

surveying tool. This type of survey method allows for ‘elaborately designed

questionnaires with colour, graphics, audio features and sophisticated skip patterns’

(Gunter, Nicholas, Huntington & Williams, 2002:232). Moreover, the software was

programmed automatically to collect and provide ongoing summaries of the data.

There is a growing body of evidence that ‘online surveys produce higher

response quality than some offline methodologies, and online questioning results in

fewer items being omitted by respondents’ (Gunter et al., 2002:235). Online survey

may also be more effective in addressing sensitive issues and respondents seem to be

more willing to reveal information about their experiences with sensitive conditions

(Gunter et al., 2002). Evans and Mathur (2005) argued that if conducted properly,

online surveys have significant advantages over other formats.

This online study took place at Malaysian higher education institutions which

were willing to participate in the study. The Deputy Vice Chancellor and the Registrar

of all Malaysian public universities were contacted and invited to participate in the

study. Written consent for conducting the study was given by three publicly

government-funded universities in Malaysia.

The online survey hyperlink together with a cover letter, a survey

advertisement letter, and participation information sheet were informed and

disseminated by the administrator of every faculty, school or department in each

participating university to all academic staff members.

Four established measuring instruments and a newly constructed instrument

for the study were put into a set of online questionnaire on SurveyMonkey.com.

Together with these instruments was a demographic questionnaire which included

84

questions about respondents’ gender, age, tenure in present university, and

management position.

Each respondent’s completed questionnaire was automatically computed and

saved in the SurveyMonkey.com database. No one apart from the researcher had any

access to the returned online questionnaires which catered for the issue of

confidentiality.

c. Survey Instruments

The scales used to measure the variables for this study were adapted from the

literature review, developed from the findings of the preliminary interviews, or were

modified from existing scales developed by the past theorists and researchers. Five

established measuring instruments were chosen for this study which were Spector’s

Job Satisfaction Survey (1997), a modified version of Job Descriptive Index by

Bartram, Stanton, Leggat, Casimir and Fraser (2007), a modified scale on Work and

Life Balance from Beehr et.al’s Work and Life Policies (1976), Meyer and Allen’s

original version of Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (1990), and Camman et

al.’s Intent to Turnover Scale (1979). They were selected because of the extensive

usage of each of the instruments by other researchers. Moreover, the value of internal

consistency (alpha value) shown by each of the instruments was high which reflected

acceptable value of reliability. Also, based on the findings in the qualitative study, a

specific instrument was developed and included in the survey to measure the

government and university policies apart from some questions on demographics of the

respondents.

The online survey, together with a copy of participant information sheet,

contained the following six sections:

Section 1: Satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support

Section 2: Satisfaction with Organisational Factors (Spector’s JSS)

Section 3: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance (Beehr et.al’s WLP)

Section 4: Overall Job Satisfaction (Bartram et al.’s modified JDI)

Section 5: Intention to Leave (Camman et al.’s ITS)

Section 6: Demographic Backgrounds questions.

85

All items (except for demographic questions in Section 6) were rated on a 5-

point Likert-type scale where 1= Disagree very much and 5=Agree very much. Some

items in these scales were negatively worded in order to maintain reliable answers

from respondents. These negatively worded questions were then reverse-coded before

doing the reliability checking. All instruments have been tested for validity and

reliability based on the pilot study. The instruments were put on an online survey

program (SurveyMonkey.com) along with a set of demographics questionnaire where

participants went to complete the survey through the Internet. Each respondent’s

completed survey was then automatically computed and saved in the

SurveyMonkey.Com Tool, and the results were downloaded into SPSS for

quantitative analysis.

Table 3.3 shows all instruments used in the quantitative study, the founder of

each instrument, several studies implementing each instrument, variables associated

and scales measured by each instrument, and alpha value based on the pilot study.

There have been two approaches to the study of job satisfaction. First, the

global approach treats job satisfaction as a single, overall feeling toward the job

(Spector, 1996:14). Second, the facet approach focuses on job facets or different

aspects of the job which allows for a more complete picture of one’s job satisfaction

(Mohd Noor, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1997; Spector, 1996). Based on these approaches,

this study implemented both global and facet approaches to measure academics’ job

satisfaction.

86

Table 3.3: Instruments used in the quantitative study

Instrument Founder Several Studies

Implementing Instrument Variables Scales Number of

Items Cronbach’s

Alpha in pilot

study Government and

University Policies

and Support

(GUPS)

Based on the

qualitative

study

(October-

November

2007)

- Satisfaction with

University’s Policy (Independent)

Four constructed items

from the qualitative study

findings

4 0.56

Job Satisfaction

Survey (JSS)

Spector

(1997) Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek &

Frings-Dresen (2003), Klein

(2007), Mohd Noor (2004),

Murray (1999), Ranz,

Stueve and Mcquistion

(2001)

Satisfaction with

Organisational

Antecedents (Independent)

Pay Promotion Supervision Fringe Benefits Contingent Rewards Operating Conditions Co-workers Nature of Work Communication

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

079 0.82 0.79 0.81 0.76 0.61 0.67 0.75 0.72

Work and Life Policies

Beehr et al.

(1976) Pare and Tremblay (2000) Work and Life

Balance Satisfaction (Independent)

Several adapted items from

Work and Life Policies 6 0.81

Modified version of

Job Descriptive

Index (JDI)

Smith,

Kendall &

Hulin (1969)

Bartram, et al. (2007) Overall Job

Satisfaction (Interdependent

variable)

Overall Job Satisfaction 6 0.89

Intent to Turnover

Scale Camman,

Fichman,

Jenkins and

Klesh (1979)

Hung-Ryong Lee (2000),

Jones (2002), Ogaard

(2006),

Intention to Leave (Dependent)

Overall Intention to Leave 3 0.88

87

a. Section 1: Satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support

(GUPS)

One of the major changes to public sector organisations, which in this study

are the participating public universities, has been the new focus on ‘developing

mission statements and related organisational policies for every aspect of the

organisation including human resources' (Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2005:294). In the

Malaysian public university setting, universities from time to time strategized new

goals and objectives through policy changes based on the changes and development of

the socio-economic and political structure of the nation. As discussed in Chapter 1,

changes of policies in the public higher educational sector may have a significant

influence on academics’ job satisfaction. To investigate public university academics’

satisfaction towards government and universities policies and support, this measure of

satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support was developed.

Four items included in this measure are key issues that were based from the findings

in interviews with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study stage. The

measure has been piloted to obtain the reliability coefficient, and it is depicted in

Table 3.3.

b. Section 2: Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents (Spector’s JSS)

Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey is used as a mean of investigating academics

satisfaction with several organisational antecedents. Various fields of studies have

used JSS to investigate multi-dimensional state of job satisfaction (see Klein, 2007;

Mohd Noor, 2004; Murray, 1999; Ranz, Stueve & Mcquistion, 2001; Saane, Sluiter,

Verbeek & Frings-Dresen, 2003).

This demonstrated that JSS is suitable to be employed across all categories of

occupation including academics in higher educational sector. JSS uses 36 items to

assess employee attitudes about the job and nine aspects of the job (Spector, 1997).

The nine facets or aspects proposed by Spector are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers or colleagues, nature of

work, and communication. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the

results of the pilot study is depicted in Table 3.3.

88

c. Section 3: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance (Beehr et.al’s WLP)

To measure work-life balance, respondents were queried regarding their

perception on the organisation’s work and life policy. For this purpose, this study used

modified versions of the Work and Life Policy instrument proposed by Beehr, Walsh

and Taber (1976) and Pare, Tremblay and Lalonde (2000). These instruments were

not intended to represent a sound scale of work and life policy but rather to investigate

the level of work and life balance satisfaction which would be applicable for

academics in higher education. This instrument was comprised of six items which

were summed together to represent each respondent’s perception on their work-life

balance. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the results of the pilot

study is depicted in Table 3.3.

d. Section 4: Overall Job Satisfaction (Bartram et al.’s modified JDI)

Job satisfaction measures traditionally used in organisational research were

uni-dimensional or a global approach which treats job satisfaction as a single, overall

feeling toward the job (Lok, 1997:172). This measure was derived from a modified

version of Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Bartram et al. (2007). It has 6

items which were summed together and assessed the global feeling of academics

about their job satisfaction. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the

results of the pilot study is depicted in Table 3.3.

e. Section 5: Intention to Leave (Camman et al.’s ITS)

A review of the literature shows that there is a huge number of well-

established intention to leave measures (Eberhardt, Pooyan & Moser, 1995; Jones,

2002; Lee, 2000; Ogaard, 2006). This study used the modified version of Intent to

Turnover Scale (ITL) developed by Camman, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh (1979). It

has 3 items which assessed the overall response of one’s intention to leave the

organisation. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the results of the pilot

study is depicted in Table 3.3.

89

f. Section 6: Demographic Backgrounds Questions

The demographic section implemented in this study includes questions on

respondents’ gender, age, tenure in present university, and management position.

3.3.5 Stage 5: Validity and Trustworthiness

The final stage addressed in this study is validity and trustworthiness. As pointed out

by DeCuir-Gunby (2008:131) ‘addressing issues of validity and trustworthiness is

essential to conducting mixed methods research’. In this study, validity is addressed in

both qualitative and quantitative methods, where it examined aspects of truth value,

applicability, consistency, and neutrality (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

3.3.5.1 Validity in Qualitative Methods

In qualitative research, validity is often referred to as trustworthiness,

credibility, dependability, conformability, and understanding (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008;

Litwin, 1995; Remenyi et al., 1998). Hence, there are two ways implemented in this

study to address the qualitative aspect’s validity which are triangulation and member

checks as suggested by DeCuir-Gunby (2008).

The research data was triangulated which followed Decuir-Gunby (2008)

argument that this helped to reduce risk of bias and allowed a better assessment of the

phenomena. In this study, triangulation was accomplished by comparing the

consistency in responses from both the key-person and focus group interviews.

Then, the method of member checks was used. This involved several steps

where, first, all interviewees were given a copy of transcriptions of the interviews they

have participated. Secondly, they were asked to examine the interpretations of their

interviews and thirdly, give feedback for accuracy. According to DeCuir-Gunby

(2008:132), “the use of member check helps to clear up any misconceptions and

misinterpretations that may be made by the researcher”.

90

3.3.5.2 Validity in Quantitative Methods

According to Messick (1995, in DeCuir-Gunby, 2008) in quantitative research,

truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality are addressed in terms of

construct validity which is represented by the integration of test score meaning,

interpretation, and use.

In order to address validity in the quantitative aspect, this study followed

DeCuir-Gunby 's (2008) stages of construct validation:

1. The substantive stage explored, by using theories found in the literature and

empirical evidence of the key-person and focus groups interviews to define the

construct of the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction. Based on

the theories of job satisfaction, empirical findings of past studies, and the

outcomes in the qualitative interviews with key-persons and focus group

members, the current study developed the construct of the antecedents and

consequence of job satisfaction among academics and built the questionnaire

for the next stage of the study which was the online survey. These are

explained in Section 3.4.2.

2. The structural stage in the online survey examined the relationships between

the variables and constructs that were included in this study. This is

constituted using factorial analysis, descriptive statistics, item analysis,

reliability analysis, regression analysis and multivariate analysis. The findings

of these examinations are explained in Chapter 8.

3.4 Data Analysis

There are two types of data analysis conducted in the study- qualitative and

quantitative.

3.4.1 Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is the analysis of various forms of narrative data,

including data stored in audio, video, and other formats (Anderson, 2004; Freebody,

2003; Gay & Diehl, 1992). These narrative data are usually prepared for analysis by

91

converting raw material into partially processed data, which are then subjected to a

particular analysis scheme (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:251). The qualitative analysis

in the study used in the qualitative study and is discussed extensively in Chapter 4,

Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7.

3.4.2 Quantitative Data Analysis

On the other hand, quantitative data analysis is the analysis of numeric data

using a variety of statistical techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:256). In the

current study, descriptive and inferential methods, together with the univariate

statistics were employed to answer research questions and hypotheses. The

quantitative analysis in the current study was undertaken in the pilot study and online

survey. These findings are discussed broadly in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6,

Chapter 7, and Chapter 8. As for the quantitative method, the data collected is

analysed by using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) e.g. descriptive,

correlations and multiple regression.

3.4.2.1 Descriptive analysis

Descriptive analysis such as frequency, percentage and mean are used to

explain the level of each of the variables included in the online study. To determine

the level of satisfaction with each of the antecedents of job satisfaction among

respondents, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave, frequencies and

percentages of responses were calculated and mean and standard deviation results of

satisfaction were analysed. The mean value of responses were computed and

categorised into 3 interval level of responses accordingly to the work of Akpofure

(2006), DeMato (2001), and Goff (2004). The interval level of responses were 1= low

(mean score of 1.00-2.33), 2= moderate (2.34-3.67) and 3= high (3.68-5.00).

The usage of mean comparison is to identify the demographic influence on the

responses. In this study, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test are used to test

whether there are significance differences on the level of satisfaction towards each

antecedent of satisfaction and overall job satisfaction and the level of intention to

leave between different demographic backgrounds of academics. Post-hoc tests were

92

conducted after ANOVA was run in order to compare the differences of all

investigated variables by different demographic backgrounds.

For the purpose of comparing findings based on demographic backgrounds,

following Ferrer’s (2010) work on analysing demographic differences, the

demographic variable was divided into several sub-groups. Gender was divided

between male and female, while management positions were divided between holding

management position and not holding any management position.

For the variable of age, following Ferrer (2010) and Oshagbemi (1997),

respondents were divided into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and

under; Group 2: 26 to 35; Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and

over). Respondents were also divided into four groups according to their tenure in the

current university (Group 1: 10 years and under; Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21

to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).

The correlation analysis is adopted to explain the relationships among the

antecedents of satisfaction and overall job satisfaction, the level of intention to leave

and several demographic backgrounds of academics. The correlation analysis was

implemented to answer Question 7 and presented in Chapter 8. The correlation

coefficients summarize the relationship displayed in a cross tabulation by representing

the statistical value which is called Pearson’s r (Pallant, 2001). Correlation

coefficients e.g. Person product-moment provide the direction and the strength of the

linear relationship between two variables. The r can range from -1 to +1, the sign of a

positive correlation indicates as one variable increases, the other variable will increase

accordingly. On the other hand, a negative correlation indicates that as one variable

increases the other decreases (Pallant, 2001). The guide in the interpretation of the

relationship is known as Guildford’s rule of thumb (Konting, 1993 and Mohd Noor,

2004), which is shown in Table 3.4.

Correlations obtained between two variables do not imply that there is a

‘cause-and- effect’ relationship. It merely indicates that as one variable varies, there is

some degree of systematic change in the other variable, but does not cause the other

(Mohd Noor, 2004; Pallant, 2001).

93

Table 3.4: Guildford’s Rule of Thumb

R value Strength of Relationship

Less than 0.20

0.20 – 0.40

0.40 – 0.70

0.70 – 0.90

More than 0.90

Almost negligible relationship

Low correlation, definite but small relationship

Moderate correlation, substantial relationship

High correlation, marked relationship

Very high correlation, very dependable relationship

3.4.2.2 Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Multiple regression and hierarchical regression methods are also used to

measure the effect of mediator and moderators on the relationship between

independent and dependent variables of the study. In this study, job satisfaction is

implemented as a mediator variable between the antecedents of job satisfaction and

intention to leave. While demographic backgrounds of age, gender, tenure and

management position are implemented as the moderator variables between overall job

satisfaction and intention to leave. The analyses using multiple regression and

hierarchical regression were implemented in order to answer Question 8 and Question

9. The associated findings were presented in Chapter 8.

a. Mediation Analysis and Alternative Significance Tests – ‘Distribution of

Product’ Method

Mediation in its simplest form ‘represents the addition of a third variable to the

relationship between an initial variable and an outcome variable, whereby the initial

variable causes the mediator, and the mediator variable causes the outcome variable’

(Mackinnon, Fairchild & Fritz, 2007:595). The purpose of mediation analysis is to

examine whether an independent variable leads to another variable (the mediator),

which then transmits the effects of the independent variable to the dependent variable

(Baron & Kenny, 1986; Tharenou, Donohue & Cooper, 2007).

Thus, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is

mediated or transmitted by another variable (Tharenou et al., 2007). A variable may

94

be called a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relation between the

predictor (also called as the cause, initial or independent variable) and the criterion

(also called as the outcome or dependent variable) (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher &

Hayes, 2004).

Figure 3.4 gives a picture of the illustration of the mediation model employed

in the current study as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and described by

Mackinnon, Fairchild and Fritz (2007), Preacher and Hayes (2004) and Tharenou et

al. (2007).

Figure 3.4: The Mediation Model

(Source: Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Tharenou et al., 2008)

Panel A of Figure 3.4 represents the unmediated model of effect of some

proposed cause (variable X) on some outcome (variable Y) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Panel B of Figure 3.4 represents the simplest form of mediation, the type that occurs

when one mediating variable (variable M) mediates the effect of X on Y (Preacher &

Hayes, 2004). The simple relationship between X and Y is often referred to as the

total effect of X on Y. Kenny and Baron (1986) denote the total effect c to distinguish

it from c’, the direct effect of X on Y after controlling for M.

Mediation analyses were conducted using the technique outlined by Baron &

Kenny (1986) and Villanueva & Djurkovic (2009). The selection of the Baron and

X Y

X Y

M

c

c’

a b

Panel A

Panel B

95

Kenny’s mediation technique in this study was based on the sense that this study

focused on investigating simple relationships between three dimensions of variables

(the predictor, the mediator, and the output variables). This is the most common way

to test for mediation (Tharenou et al., 2007) other than the structural equation

modelling which is more suitable for testing more complex mediation models.

A multiple regression analysis consisting of four regression equations were

used in the study following Baron and Kenny (1986) and Villanueva and Djurkovic’s

(2009) causal steps in establishing mediation. First, to show that the initial variable is

significantly correlated with the outcome variable, it regresses the dependent variable

on the independent variable (represents by c in Figure 3.4). Second, to show that the

initial variable is significantly correlated with the mediator, it regresses the mediator

variable on the independent variable (represents by a in Figure 3.4). Third, to show

that the mediator affects the outcome variable, it regresses the dependent variable on

the mediator variable (represent by b in Figure 3.4). Fourth, to show that the initial

variable is significantly correlated with the outcome variable when the mediator

variable is controlled, it regresses the dependent variable on both the independent

variable and on the mediator (represents by c’ in Figure 3.4). Separate coefficients for

each equation were estimated and tested.

Tharenou et al. (2007) and Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) assert that

mediation effects occur when four conditions or steps are met: Condition 1- The

independent variable must significantly predict the dependent variable; Condition 2-

the independent variable must significantly predict the mediator variable; Condition 3

– the mediator variable must significantly predict the dependent variable; and the

predictive utility of the independent variable must significantly be reduced no

different to zero (path c’ in Figure 3.4), in comparison to Condition 1, when the

independent variable and the mediator are used simultaneously to predict the

dependent variable.

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), MacKinnon, Fairchild and Fritz

(2007), and Mackinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West and Sheets (2002), the last step or

Condition 4, to establish that a mediator variable completely mediates the

relationship between predictor and outcome variables, the effect of predictor on

outcome controlling for mediator should be zero (c’=0). If all four of the steps

explained above are met, then the data are consistent with the hypothesis that

96

mediator variable completely mediates the predictor-outcome relationship (Baron &

Kenny, 1986).

Conversely, if the first three steps’ conditions are met but the fourth step is

not, where the regression coefficient for the independent variable goes down in

magnitude but is still statistically significant, then partial mediation is indicated

(Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Tharenou et al., 2004). MacKinnon et al. (2002) conducted

a study to compare fourteen methods to test the statistical significance of the

intervening or mediating variable effect. This was based on the fact that Baron and

Kenny’s (1986) ‘Causal Steps’ approach has low statistical power (Preacher & Hayes,

2004). MacKinnon et al. (2002) believe that the Causal Steps does not provide string

evidence of mediation, given lack of significance of the partial effect of moderator to

outcome variable unless the sample size is large. Furthermore, Preacher and Hayes

(2004) argue that the statistical significance of the difference between the total effect

(c) and the direct effect (c’) of predictor variable on outcome variable is not formally

stated by Baron and Kenny as a requirement for mediation. Instead, ‘Baron and

Kenny simply state that perfect mediation has occurred if direct effect (c’) becomes

non-significant after controlling for mediator, so researchers have focused only on

that requirement’ (Preacher & Hayes, 2004:719). Some researchers emphasise that ‘it

is not enough to show that the predictor-outcome relationship is smaller when the

mediator variable is added to the model, but rather a test for the significance of the

change is critical’ (Beaujean, 2008:430).

There are some alternatives to assess for the significance of a mediation effect

- to name some of them like Sobel First-order Solution, Aroian Second-order Exact

Solution and Goodman Unbiased Solution (Beaujean, 2008: MacKinnon et al., 2007;

Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Based on Mackinnon et al.’s (2007) study to compare 14

different methods’ statistical performance, they concluded that one of the best

methods to test the significance of the intervening variable (mediator) effect is

MacKinnon et al.’s (1998) ‘Distribution of Product’ method (ZZ). Other methods

to test the significance of intervening variable effects have low power ‘due to the test

statistic not really being normally distributed, inaccuracy of standard error values, and

so on’ (MacKinnon et al. 2002: 92-95).

The current study was implemented accordingly to Mackinnon et al.’s (2002)

guide on using this method which involves the distribution of the product of two Z

97

statistics - one for the a parameter, , and another for the b parameter,

. and are the unstandardised regression coefficients for path a and b,

while Zand Z were the t scores for path a and path b in the mediation effect

model as shown in Figure 3.4 above.

If and are assumed to be normal, the ZZ term can be directly tested for

significance using critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the product of

two normal random variables, P = ZZto determine significance (MacKinnon et al.,

2002:90). The critical values P = ZZ can be found from MacKinnon et al. (2002).

For example, the critical value to test = 0 in the current study for the 0.05

significance level for the P = ZZ is 2.18. It means that any value in the intervening

relationship shown by t value of path a multiply with t value of path b which is equal

or more than P = 2.18 is significant. Accordingly, this is the evidence that the

mediation relationship between a cause or independent variable and an outcome or

dependent variable is significant (Beaujean, 2008: MacKinnon, Fairchild & Frits,

2007; and Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

b. Moderation Analysis

According to Eberhardt, Pooyan and Moser (1995), Frazier, Tix, and Barron

(2004), and Kenny (2009), a moderation analysis involves a moderator variable M as

a variable that alters the strength of the causal relationship between independent

variable, X and dependent variable, Y. For instance, satisfaction towards work-life

balance may reduce intention to leave the organisation more for women than for men,

and so we would say that gender (M) moderates the causal effect of satisfaction

towards work-life balance (X) on intention to leave (Y). This is also known as the

interaction effect (Frazier et al., 2004). Most moderator analysis measure the causal

relationship between X and Y by using a regression coefficient and a complete

moderation would occur in the case in which the causal effect of X on Y would go to

zero when M took on a particular value (Kenny, 2009).

There are three equations to be considered and compared to identify the

interaction or change effect of moderator variable on the relationships occur between

independent variables and dependent variable. The equation forms a Model of

Moderation using hierarchical regression equations as in Figure 3.5 below.

98

The coefficient of R2 value obtained from the statistical analysis is used to

determine whether the moderator effect is significant and estimates the moderated

relationship. If the changes in R2(ΔR

2) is statistically significant, then a significant

moderator effect is present (Frazier et al., 2004; Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black,

1998; Kenny, 2009). In other words, the overall job satisfaction impacts on the

relationship between independent variables, for instance satisfaction towards work-

life balance and intention to leave, when ΔR2 value at the full model is significant.

Figure 3.5: Model of Moderation

where:

Y = The dependent variable (intention to leave)

X = The independent variable (antecedents of job

satisfaction)

Z = The moderator variable (overall job satisfaction)

XZ = The multiplier of the independent variable with the

moderator variable.

a = Constant Value for variable Y

b, c, and d = The regression coefficients for independent variable

e = Standard error of the estimate

Particularly, moderation analysis helps to answer the question of ‘which

demographic backgrounds of age, gender, tenure, and managerial position moderate

the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave among

academics in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions?’

Equation 1 (Original Model) = Y = a + b1X + e

Equation 2 (Limited Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + e

Equation 3 (Full Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + d1XZ + e

99

Subsequently, four assumptions are developed separately as follow:

Assumption a: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of age

Assumption b: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of gender

Assumption c: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of tenure

Assumption d: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of managerial

position

3.5 Background of the Qualitative Study

The qualitative study took the form of semi-structured interviews with academics

from three Malaysian public universities and a former Minister of Higher Education

of Malaysia in order to identify core implications of the Malaysian Government and

public universities’ policies on higher education, organisational factors, and work life

balance effects on academics’ job satisfaction.

Key-persons were selected using a purposive sampling method. These key

people had been approached personally by the researcher and through the consent

from their university. They have been asked to speak in a personal capacity and not on

behalf of their universities. The focus groups were selected mainly using a purposive

sampling method. However, in order to recruit more interviewees to join the study,

the snow ball sampling method was implemented.

Two types of interviews were conducted for this study comprising key-

informant (KI) interviews and focus-group (FG) interviews. Table 3.5 summarises the

demographic characteristics of the interviewees and Table 3.6 segregates the

interviewees according to their position in the organisation and gender.

Key-person interviews consisted of semi-structured interviews with eight key

informants. Seven of them are academics from 3 public universities A, B and C. The

participants are coded as KP1, KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, KP8, as references in this

study. Another participant, coded as KP4, was a former Minister of Higher Education

of Malaysia. Before he was involved in politics and appointed as a minister, he was an

100

academic with 17 years of lecturing experience. His participation in this qualitative

study is essential since he had once been at the forefront of the Malaysian higher

educational sector. Each interview lasted for one to one and a half hours. Interviews

with key people were considered essential in respect of their knowledge of university

and government policies, together with their overall experience, role and

responsibility in coordinating university academic programs and academic staff’s

affair.

In regards with the focus-group interviews, the responses given by the

interviewees were based on their personal stands about each and every issue that has

been brought into the discussion. There was no occurrence of any influence by any of

the focus-group member towards the others in the group. Before each of the focus-

group interviews is executed, the researcher had carefully reminded the focus-group

interviewees that they are free to answer the questions given in the session that related

to themselves and respond in their own capacity.

101

Table 3.5: Demographic Characteristics of the Interviewees

Interview Respondent

Code Gender Age Marital

Status Academic

Level University Lecturing

Experience (years)

Position In University/

Government

Key-person KP1 Female 57 Married PHD A 27 Dean Of A Faculty cum

Professor Key-person KP2 Male 52 Married PHD A 25 Deputy Vice Chancellor cum

Professor Key-person KP3 Female 46 Married PHD A 10 Department Director cum

Senior Lecturer Key-person KP4 Male 58 Married PHD - 17 Former Minister Of Higher

Education Key-person KP5 Male 28 Single Bachelor C 2 Lecturer cum Head of

Department Key-person KP6 Male 49 Married PHD B 23 University Branch’s Provost

cum Assoc. Professor Key-person KP7 Male 52 Married Master B 20 University Branch’s Deputy

Provost cum Assoc. Professor Key-person KP8 Female 47 Married Master B 21 Program Coordinator cum

Assoc. Professor Focus Group 1 FG1-1 Male 34 Married Master A 3 Lecturer Focus Group 1 FG1-2 Female 32 Married Master A 5 Lecturer Focus Group 1 FG1-3 Male 33 Married Master A 3 Lecturer Focus Group 1 FG1-4 Male 28 Single Bachelor A 1 Tutor Focus Group 1 FG1-5 Female 34 Married Master A 6 Lecturer Focus Group 1 FG1-6 Male 27 Single Bachelor A 3 Tutor Focus Group 2 FG2-1 Male 26 Married Master C 1 Tutor Focus Group 2 FG2-2 Male 29 Married Bachelor C 3 Lecturer Focus Group 2 FG2-3 Female 32 Married Master C 1 Tutor

102

Focus group interviews consisted of two semi-structured interviews with two

groups of academics from two public universities. Focus Group 1 was comprised of

six academics with different personal characteristics and employment backgrounds

who work for public university A. Each of the participants is coded as FG1-1 to FG1-

6. Focus Group 1 session was conducted over two hours and 15 minutes. Focus Group

2 comprised of three academics with different personal characteristics and

employment background who work for public university C. Each of the participants in

this session coded as FG2-1 to FG2-3. It took about two hours for each session to be

completed.

Table 3.6: Interviewees position in the organisation and gender

No. Position Gender

Male Female

1. Former Minister 1 -

2. Deputy Vice Chancellor 1 -

3. University Branch Campus Provost 1 -

4. Branch Campus Deputy Provost 1 -

5. Faculty Dean - 1

6. Department Director/Head of Department 1 1

7. Program Coordinator - 1

8. Lecturer 3 2

9. Tutor 3 1

Total 11 6

Based on the data in Table 3.6, there were eleven males and six females in this

study. Five of the males hold management positions in their universities, while six of

the males are academics without management position. In terms of females, three of

them hold management positions while the other three do not.

Both the key-person and focus group interviews were semi-structured and

conducted informally to ensure that information given by the interviewees is in their

personal capacity and not representative of their organisations. The structured

questions in the interviews were based on certain identified antecedents of job

103

satisfaction of academics in Malaysian higher education institutions. The

identification of possible antecedents was made through extensive library research

and discussed in Chapter two of the thesis. Different sets of questions were delivered

to both key-person and focus group (See Appendix A).

Table 3.7 below represents each of the dimensions of satisfaction spoke of and

discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the table, each

interviewees’ response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is represented

by ‘X’ symbol. These dimensions arose from the literature review and are depicted in

the theoretical model in this chapter. No new dimensions other than these dimensions

of satisfaction mentioned by all key-person and focus group interview respondents.

However, it is clear from this summary table that there were varying priorities of

respondents with some antecedents being spoken of by many whilst others were rarely

referred to.

Based on the thematic analysis employed to analyse each interview with

respondents by using NVivo, two dominant categories of variation emerged. First,

respondents’ management position with, for example, the issue of promotion being

responded dominantly by key-informants who hold management position in their

universities. Conversely, issues of supervision and pay for instance, were spoken of

more so by academics without a managerial position compared to key-informants.

Second, gender differences appeared with some issues of interest to one group

although not for their counterpart. For instance, several issues regarding work-life

balance caught more interests among females than males.

. However, there were also several issues that were equally discussed by all

respondents crossing their categories. The data exploring these differences and

similarities is discussed in the next sections of this chapter.

104

Table 3.7: Dimensions of satisfaction of interviewed key-persons and focus groups in the qualitative study

Dimensions of Satisfaction

Key-person Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2

1. Government & University

Policy KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Funds for research and

development activities X

X

X

X X X

- Support for academics to further

their studies

X

X X

X X

- Policy on university-industry

partnership

X

X X X

X

X

-Internationalisation of public

universities

X X X

X

2. Pay KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Feeling towards pay received

X X

X X X X

X

X X

X

3. Promotion KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Opportunity to get promoted X

X

X

X

X

105

4.Supervision KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Fairness & consideration

X

X

X

- Management strategy &

leadership X

X

X X X X

X X

- Consultation & freedom X

X

X X

X X X X

5. Fringe benefits

KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

General opinions on fringe

benefits

X

X

X X

X X

6. Contingent rewards KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

Recognition X

X

7. Operating conditions KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Facilities at workplace

X

X X

X

- Uninterrupted working

conditions

X X

X X

X

X

- Work responsibilities X

X X

X

X

X

106

8. Co-workers KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Cooperation among colleagues X

X

X X

X X X X X X X X

- Nature of healthy competition

X X

9. Nature of work KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- The job itself

X

X X X

X

X X

- Students’ factor

X

X

X X X X X

X

X

-The nature of teaching &

research X

X X X

10. Communication KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Flow of communication

X

- Interpretation of communication

between academics &

administration staff X

11. Work-life balance KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

1. Working overtime and on weekend X X X X X X

107

2. The importance of family

support X X

X X X X

X

X

3. Impacts of work towards life or

vice versa X

X X

X X

108

3.6 Background of the Quantitative Study: Demographic Summary

Online surveys were sent to 3281 academic staff from three participating

public universities in Malaysia. A total of 1078 academic staff from the participating

public universities of Malaysia, represented by University A, University B and

University C (for the purpose of anonymity), responded in this study, representing a

total response rate of 35.7%. Based on the statistics drawn by the Ministry of Higher

Education of Malaysia in 2007, there were 1920 academics working with University

A, 797 academics working with University B, and 564 working with University C

(Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia 2009). Table 3.8 depicts segregation of

respondents based on each three participating universities. Of the 1078 respondents,

601 respondents or 55.8% of total survey participants work for University A.

Respondents from University B and University C were represented by a total of 268

(24.9%) and 209 (19.4%) respectively.

Table 3.8: Segregation of respondents based on each university

University Total

Academic Staff

Percentage

of Population

Total

Respondents

Percentage

of Sample

Percentage of

Sample from

Each University

University A 1920 58.5% 601 55.8% 31.3%

University B 797 24.3% 268 24.9% 33.6%

University C 564 17.2% 209 19.3% 37.1%

University

A+B+C

3281

100%

1078

100%

-

109

Table 3.9 below summarises the overall demographic characteristics of the

respondents in the quantitative study (n=1078).

Table 3.9: Frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of respondents

(n=1078)

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Age

25 & under 47 5.2

26-35 442 48.6

36-45 255 28.0

46-55 142 15.6

56 & over 24 2.6

Gender

Males 533 51.1

Females 510 48.9

Marital Status

Single 199 22.5

Married 667 75.4

Divorced 19 2.1

Highest Academic Qualification

Diploma 2 0.2

Bachelor Degree 52 5.9

Master Degree 550 62.1

Doctorate Degree 281 31.8

Lecturing Experience (years)

10 and under 671 74.5

11-20 155 17.2

21-30 64 7.1

31 and more 11 1.2

Tenure in Present University (years)

10 and under 723 80.2

11-20 147 16.3

21-30 29 3.2

31 and more 3 0.3

Academia’s Rank

Tutor 142 16.1

Teacher 18 2.0

Lecturer 448 50.7

Senior Lecturer 158 17.9

Associate Professor 83 9.4

Professor 34 3.9

Hold Management Position in the University

No 376 40.5

Yes 553 59.5

110

As indicated in Table 3.9, 48.6% between 26 and 35 years of age, 28%

between 36 and 45, 15.6% between 46 and 55, 5.2% were aged 25 and under, and

2.6% were 56 and above.

The data for gender showed that males and females were distributed almost

equally with males (N=533) being 2.2 per cent more than females (N=510). Married

respondents were the dominant respondents with 667 (75.4%) compared to 199

(22.5%) of single respondents and 19 (2.1%) of divorcees.

Regarding highest academic qualification, data in the table shows that 550 or

62.1% of the participating respondents hold Master Degrees, 281(31.8%) have

Doctorate Degrees, 52 (5.9%) with Bachelor Degrees, and only 2 respondents (.2%)

hold Diplomas.

The lecturing experience data reflects that academics who had worked for ten

years and less made up nearly 75% of the survey participants. This is followed by

those who had worked between eleven to 20 years (17.2%), between 21 to 30 years

(7.1%), and 31 years and more (1.2%). In the category of tenure in the universities

surveyed, academics who had worked for ten years and under were the dominant

participants in this study. This group represented 723 academics (80.2%). Those who

had worked between eleven to 20 years comprised 147 (16.3%), between 21 to 30

years comprised 29 (3.2%) and 3 (0.3%) respondents had worked for 31 years and

more.

Lecturer was the dominant category of academia’s rank which consisted of

448 respondents or more than 50% of the total sample. The least number of

respondents in this category were the Professor category which totalled 34 (3.9%).

There is almost a fairly distribution of results for respondents who hold management

position in their universities and who were not. A total of 553 (59.5%) of the

respondents answered that they hold management position in the university compared

to 376 (40.5%) who did not.

111

3.7 Findings of Normality Tests of Variables in the Quantitative Study

The assumptions of normality are ‘a prerequisite for many inferential statistical

techniques’ (Coakes, Steed & Ong, 2010:37), as it is important for the results of

statistical tests to be accurate (Thanerou, Donohue & Cooper, 2007:200). According

to Pallant (2001:54), normality is used ‘to describe a symmetrical, bell shaped curve,

with the greatest frequency of scores in the middle, and smaller frequency towards the

extremes’.

There are a number of different ways to explore this assumption of normality

graphically as suggested by Coakes, Steed and Ong (2010), Pallant (2001), Saane et

al. (2003), and Tharenou, Donohue and Cooper (2007). This study implemented

several normality tests which include:

a. Skewness value

b. Kurtosis value

c. 5% trimmed mean value

d. Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic

e. Histograms

f. Normal probability plot

g. Detrended normal plot

h. Stem-and-leaf plot

i. Boxplot

Based on all normality tests conducted on all variables investigated in the

quantitative study using SPSS, there appeared to be significant variation in all

variables of demographic variables, government and university policy satisfaction,

organisational antecedents’ satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave, thus, this means that all of the investigated

variables were normally distributed and inferential statistical tests could be done to

test the hypotheses of the quantitative study.

112

3.8 Measures of Reliability

According to Spector (1997) and Pallant (2001), the widely accepted minimum

standard for internal consistency which is reflected by the Cronbach’s alpha value is

0.70. Lambert and Paoline (2008:550) suggest that any index which had a Cronbach’s

alpha value higher than 0.60 is generally viewed as acceptable and Tu, Plaisent,

Bernard and Maguiraga (2005:263) suggest that ‘the alpha value of at least 0.60

proved reliable for the scale’.

Table 3.10 below depicts measures of reliability for the original scales, scales

used in the pilot and in the online survey.

Table 3.10: Measures of reliability for all scales

Instruments

Variables

Reliability Original

Scale Pilot Study

Online

Survey

Government and


Support Satisfaction

Satisfaction with Government

and University Policies and

Support

- 0.56 0.48

Job Satisfaction Survey Pay Satisfaction 0.75 0.79 0.78 Promotion Satisfaction 0.73 0.82 0.67 Supervision Satisfaction 0.82 0.79 0.79 Fringe Benefits Satisfaction 0.73 0.81 0.75 Contingent Rewards

Satisfaction 0.76 0.76 0.80


Satisfaction 0.62 0.61 0.71

Co-Workers Satisfaction 0.60 0.67 0.68 Nature of Work Satisfaction 0.78 0.75 0.75 Communication Satisfaction 0.71 0.72 0.79

Work and Life Policies Work-Life Balance

Satisfaction - 0.81 0.67

Modified Job Satisfaction

Index Overall Job Satisfaction 0.75 0.89 0.86

Intent to Turnover Scale Intention to Leave 0.81 0.88 0.93

When item analysis was performed in the online survey (compared to the

original and pilot study scales) using coefficient correlation analysis in SPSS 17.0, all

the scales except GUPS had a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values according to the

acceptable value for reliability level of scale, with alpha values ranging between. 0.67

and 0.93. As GUPS is a newly constructed scale in this study and never been tested in

113

any other study, it was of interest for the researcher to consider it to be retained in the

study.

Two reasons lie behind the consideration for retaining GUPS as a significant

variable in the study. First, the variable had been extensively argued in the qualitative

study with key-informants and focus groups as an influential aspect in predicting

academics’ job satisfaction. Second, Brown (2008) and Nunnaly and Berstein (1994)

argued and set the criteria of including all scales with more than 0.3 item total

correlation of Cronbach’s alpha value to be accepted as a minimum accepted level of

reliability. The values of Cronbach’s Alpha for GUPS in both the pilot study and

online survey were 0.56 and 0.48, but the correlation between items representing

GUPS were more than the value of 0.3 and this was considered as a fairly strong value

to be accepted as reliable. Thus, all variables in the current online study were

respectively reliable and included for further statistical tests and analysis.

3.9 Non-response Bias Analysis and Common Method Variance in the

Quantitative Study

As in many survey studies, there are two important issues that need to be identified

before proceeding with the quantitative analysis. These are non-response bias and

common method variance (CMV). According to Lindner, Murphy and Briers

(2001:43), non-response bias is one of the possible sources of error in sample survey

research. Indeed, non-response bias is a major challenge facing studies using surveys

as a method of data collection (Atif, Richards & Bilgin, 2012:1) including the current

study. A general view expressed by researchers using survey instruments is that when

the survey response rate is considerably high, there is no need to worry about the

probability of non-response bias (Lindner et al., 2001: 45). However, statisticians and

other experts in the survey method recommend that researchers should conduct a non-

response bias analysis, regardless of how high or how low the response rate is

achieved (see Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Meade, Watson & Kroustalis, 2007; Atif

et al., 2012).

The current study has implemented two methods to estimate non-response bias

according to the suggestions of Armstrong and Overton (1977), Rogelberg and

Stanton (2007) and Atif et al. (2012). These methods are:

114

a. Follow up approach. This has been done by resurvey non-respondents through an

email sent to them three times after the first invitation to participate in the first

email. The first email was sent to all academic staff members in the three

participating universities in early October, 2008. The consecutive follow up

emails were sent once after a month for three times in November, 2008, January,

2009 and February, 2009. This was done with the assistance of the administrator

of every faculty, school or department in each participating university.

b. Wave analysis. The technique is also called as the Linear Extrapolation Method

(Armstrong & Overton, 1997). In accordance to the work of Atif et al. (2012), the

extrapolation method used in the current study is based on the assumption that

respondents contacted through the online survey who respond ‘less readily’ or

answering later are more like non-respondents. Wave refers to the response

generated by a stimulus where in the current study the stimulus was the follow-up

emails.

For the current study, wave analysis was implemented by comparing late

respondents to early respondents in the database used in the study (via

SurveyMonkey online survey tool). Persons who respond in the latest wave (after

the quantitative study ended on March 31, 2009) are assumed to have responded

because of the increased stimulus and are expected to be similar to the non-

respondents. The total for non-respondents category was 29 respondents who

responded to the online survey after March 31, 2009. Table 3.11 below shows the

three waves of invitations to participate in the current study and cumulative

responses.

The findings of the methods used in analysing non-response bias proved that

the degree of non-response had been minimised in the current study. Following the

suggestions of the past research studies (see Rogelberg and Stanton, 2007; Atif et al.,

2012), the current study considered several other ways of maximising the

participation of the targeted respondents in the three participated public universities in

Malaysia. For instance, the current study paid special attention to online survey

distribution plan, communication plan (emails with the key-persons who helped in

115

distributing the survey online address to targeted respondents, pre-notification letter,

ethical issues personalised cover letter, follow up reminders, and thank you notes),

and questionnaire design (simple survey formats and length of questionnaire).

Table 3.11: The Waves of Participations Invitations and Cumulative Responses

Waves Number of

responses

Cumulative

Response

Category of

Respondents

Initial Responses

294

394

Respondents

Reminder 1

(November 2008)

368

762

Reminder 2

(January 2009)

201

963

Reminder 3

(February 2009)

115 1078

April 2009 37 - Non-Respondents

In regards to the issue of common method variance analysis, this is refers to

the investigation of the amount of spurious covariance shared among variables

because of the common method used in collecting data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee

& Podsakoff, 2003). According to Meade et al. (2007), there are four major types of

CMV which include sources due to having a common rater, item characteristic

effects, item context effects, and measurement context effects.

There are four alternative approaches to assessing CMV, which are traditional

multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) procedure, confirmatory factor analysis based

MTMM technique, Harman’s single-factor test, and marker-variable technique (see

Meade et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The current study implemented Harman’s

single-factor test in order to investigate CMV. According to the findings after several

steps taken in this particular test, it was found that there was no such issue of CMV

and the occurrence of biases, since the first factor explained the majority of the

variance in the variables used in the current study which consist of the antecedents

variables of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave the

organisation.

116

3.10 Conclusion

This chapter outlined the research methodology and mixed method designs that are

used in this thesis. The implementation of the mixed methods research was elaborated

in Section 3.2. This section also argued the differences of the major paradigms of

research methods, and elaborated reasons of why this study chose to employ a

sequential mixed methods design. In Section 3.3, the mixed methods research design

model which includes purpose of the study, theoretical framework, research questions,

methods and validity was discussed. The direction of relationships among variables in

this study is depicted through the explanation of research questions and

methodological design. Qualitative and quantitative data collected in the study, their

thematic and statistical analysis and software used were elaborated in Section 3.4.

This chapter has also elaborated backgrounds of qualitative study through the

interviews in Section 3.5 and quantitative study through the online survey in Section

3.6. It was followed by the explanations on the findings of demographic analysis,

normality tests, measures of reliability for all scales used in the quantitative study, and

non-response bias analysis and common method variance in the quantitative study.

Next, Chapter 4 will discuss the satisfaction with the government and

universities policies and support. Chapter 5 and 6 will discuss the satisfaction with

organisational factors. Chapter 7 on work-life balance satisfaction exploring the

findings of the qualitative study and quantitative study.

117

Chapter 4

SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITIES POLICIES

AND SUPPORT

4.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies

and Support (GUPS) based on interviews with key-persons and focus groups from

three public universities in November and December 2007. Furthermore, this chapter

details the findings of the quantitative study in relation to GUPS completed by

academics from three participating universities between November 2008 and March

2009. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 4.1 below.

Section

Description

The section introduces the chapter and gives an

overview of the next sections.

The section discusses the findings in the qualitative

study specifically on general satisfaction with

GUPS. The section describes the qualitative study findings

on several issues initiated related to satisfaction with

GUPS.

The section elaborates the findings of the

quantitative study.

The section summarizes key findings from both the

qualitative and quantitative study and concludes the

chapter.


4.1 Introduction

4.2 Qualitative Study Findings:

General Satisfaction


Key issues pertaining to GUPS

4.4 Quantitative Study Findings

4.5 Conclusion

118

The aims for the first part of this chapter were first, to understand respondents’

impressions and satisfactions of key issues in the area of Government and Universities

Policies and Support through a qualitative method and then to investigate differences

based on respondents’ demographic backgrounds.

The aims of the second part which was conducted through a quantitative

method of data collection were to investigate a larger number of respondents. The

study also aims to investigate differences in satisfaction with GUPS among academics

by different type of demographic backgrounds.

GUPS is an antecedent of academics’ job satisfaction and the study focused

and explored the antecedent. In the next chapters, the study expands on this and tests

the relationship between satisfaction with GUPS and overall job satisfaction.

The chapter is structured into three main sections. First, the general feelings of

satisfaction with GUPS among interview respondents are detailed. Secondly, all

issues discussed by interview respondents regarding satisfaction with GUPS are

elaborated. Section Three presents descriptive findings of the quantitative study in

regards to academics’ satisfaction towards GUPS.

4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with GUPS

This section describes the findings in the qualitative study pertaining to the general

satisfaction of academics in regard to GUPS (GUPS). In each of the interview

sessions, a question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction

towards GUPS. In the interview with the former Minister of Higher Education (KP4),

this question was not asked as he can not speak on the capacity as an academic. These

answers were coded based in whether they spoke of these in terms of satisfaction;

dissatisfaction; neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; or no response was given or it was

unclear. Table 4.1 presents this data.

119

Table 4.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with GUPS

Based on the findings in Table 4.1, after excluding KP4, nine of the interview

respondents responded that they are satisfied with GUPS. Two of the respondents

mentioned that they are dissatisfied, and five of them said that they are neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Furthermore, all interview respondents except a tutor (FG2-3) initiated

discussions on their general state of satisfaction pertaining to GUPS.

4.2.1 Satisfied Respondents

As elaborated broadly in Chapter One, government support included financial

support to cultivate research and development activities in universities, incentives to

cultivate collaborations between the university and the industry, career development

support for academics, and scholarships for academics to further study (see Din, 2001;

Ali, 2003; Mohd Noor, 2007b). Such support had previously been found to

significantly and substantially impact on universities and its academic staff (Shen,

Yang, Shiau & Wang, 2006; Mohd Noor, 2007b). Based on the interviews with key-

person and focus groups, these support offered and policies constituted by the

Interview Respondents

Responses

Key-person

KP1 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied


KP3 Satisfied KP4 - KP5 Satisfied KP6 Dissatisfied KP7 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied KP8 Dissatisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Satisfied FG1-2 Satisfied FG1-3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied FG1-4 Satisfied FG1-5 Satisfied

FG1-6 Satisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Satisfied FG2-2 Satisfied FG2-3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

120

government and universities were perceived by most of the responded interviewees as

positive drivers of job satisfaction for academics.

Four key-persons, who are in university’s management level, mentioned their

general satisfaction with government and university’s support (KP2, KP3, KP5, and

KP6). As a department director (KP3) put it:

…I am satisfied with the support and policy of the government and the

university… The government and university’s policy is a mechanism of total

support towards the development of the university and its human resources. I

believe that these supports are purely aimed to generate not only the well-

being of the university, its academic staff, or whatever, but also to nurture that

well-being to be benefited by the public generally... These supports have

important impacts towards academic sector and researches (KP3 - Key-person

Interview, 26 October 2007).

A head of department (KP5) pointed out that such support was perceived as one of the

important drivers towards job satisfaction, and he explained it in terms of academics’

career:

…it could be a motivation or driver for tutors and lecturers in my university

to further their study at ease. For me, this kind of support given by the

government and university is one of the factors that made us really satisfied

with our career as an academic (KP5- Key-person Interviews, 1 November

2007).

From the perspective of the operational level, seven academics in the focus

group interviews (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG1-6, FG2-1, and FG2-2) also

mentioned their general satisfaction with the government and university’s support.

Their satisfactions are best described by a tutor (FG1-6) and a lecturer (FG2-2):

For me these developments really influence academics’ job satisfaction… I

believe that every single policy, trend or new development structured by the

government and university is able to spark our work motivation, improve the

quality of our work, and could help to produce quality students… it really

helps academics to feel satisfied with their job (FG1-6 – Focus Group


121

…these (support) are aimed to create a knowledgeable society and it

strengthens the government’s mission to be a fully developed country in these

few years…. I am happy with the developments because the government

solemnly aimed to upgrade the quality of higher education, and specifically

me as an academic (FG2-2 - Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

4.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents

Even though the majority of the interview respondents argued that they were

generally satisfied with GUPS, there were also some respondents who brought up

their dissatisfaction in the interviews. Although none expressly stated they were

overall dissatisfied, there were certain statements that reflected dissatisfactions with

some aspects of this part of their working life.

For instance, a female key-person of a university (KP8) said: ‘Without enough

money support, academics cannot move ahead, they will lose their motivation, and

without motivation there will be no job satisfaction’ (KP8 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

Another respondent, a provost of a public university branch campus (KP6),

highlighted his dissatisfaction with the government policy specifically R&D funds

granted by the government for his university. He argued that his university had

received a smaller amount of R&D grant compared to several other public universities

and this restricted his academic staff members to initiate a quality research and

development programs.

These were several general dissatisfactions pointed out by some of the

interview respondents. It shows that GUPS were of importance and should be

implemented carefully since it could affect not only academics job satisfaction, but

also other attitudinal outcomes such as commitment, work stress, or intention to leave.

122

4.3 Qualitative Study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Satisfaction with GUPS

Apart from their general satisfaction and dissatisfaction with GUPS, the interview

respondents also raised and initiated discussions on several important specific issues

that impacted on their satisfaction with GUPS.

Table 4.2 represents each of the issues of satisfaction with GUPS spoken of

and discussed by interviewed key-persons and focus groups. In the table, each

interviewee’s response towards all topics of the discussion in the interviews is

represented by ‘X’ symbol. These issues were segregated based on keywords and key

points of satisfaction towards GUPS.

123

Table 4.2: Academics’ satisfaction with government and university policies in the qualitative study

Antecedent of Satisfaction


Government & University

Policies

KP

1

KP

2

KP

3

KP

4

KP

5

KP

6

KP

7

KP

8

FG

1-1

FG

1-2

FG

1-3

FG

1-4

FG

1-5

FG

1-6

FG

2-1

FG

2-2

FG

2-3

1. Funds for research and

development activities X X X X X X

2. Support for academics to

further their studies X X X X X

3. Policy on university-industry

partnership X X X X X X

4. Internationalisation of public

universities X X X X

Note: X represents response given by interview respondents

124

Four major issues were spoken of by the interview respondents in key-person

interviews and focus group interviews. As shown in Table 4.2, the issues were funds

for research and development activities, support for academics to further their studies,

policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of public

universities.

There were several key-points revealed from Table 4.2 based on the responses

given by key-persons and focus group members. As we can see, the issues of funds

for R&D activities and support for academics to further their studies were spoken of

mostly by focus group members who were academics in the operational level of the

universities. Four academics in focus groups mentioned and discussed both issues

respectively. Only two key-persons talked about funds for R&D, while support for

academics to further their study caught the attention of one key-person only.

On the other hand, key-persons who were at the university management level,

had spoken more so on the issues of policy on university-industry partnership and

internationalisation of public universities compared to the academics in focus group

interviews.

The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on each

issue and highlights key information used to build survey questions and hypotheses

specifically on the satisfaction with GUPS.

4.3.1 Funds for research and development activities

Research and development (R&D) of universities is one of the main priorities

of the Ministry of Higher Education (Mohamed, 2006). A lecturer (FG1-5 – Focus

Group Interview, 26 October 2007) argued that R&D is a very important component

in education because ‘without R&D, academics could not develop in the educational

sector and it is hard for them to compete with others (internationally)’. She is

confident that monetary support provided by the government for R&D activities will

be a ‘force of motivation’ for academics.

As argued in Chapter 1, with a strong monetary and infrastructure support by

the government, universities are pursuing a more dynamic role in R&D programs

across various fields of study. The funds provided by the government for R&D

activities in universities are welcomed by respondents in this qualitative study and

125

most of the interview respondents who spoke on this issue tended to mention their

satisfaction (KP3, FG1-2, FG1-4, and FG1-6). Government funds for R&D was

argued by a department director (KP3) to have substantial positive impacts toward the

higher educational sector and also as a factor that contributed to academics’

development in their career and job satisfaction:

For example a few months back, our Ministry of Higher Education had

organised an international exhibition and competition on R&D which was

participated by universities and academics from all over the world. The

participation of the program was opened to all local educational institutions

and academics too. The Ministry (of Higher Education) had funded most of

the local participants, and this was great! It was a good platform for academics

to share their research and R&D products internationally. I am happy with the

support provided by the government through this program (KP3 – Key-person


Consequently, it is not simply putting money into R&D, but how it is used in

developing new knowledge that is specific to the Malaysian context and that can be

translated into good teaching practice that is key. This is evidenced by the satisfaction

delivered by academics who work in the operational level in the universities. For

example, respondent FG1-4 argued:

My research team managed to finish our short-term research a couple of weeks

ago. The grant given by the university was adequate to our needs in the

research program. I am so happy to be given the opportunity to join the

research. It’s not because of the amount (of research grant we got), but more

the experience I gained through the process of doing the research... I gained a

lot of positive things which I could share it with my students then (FG1-4:

Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

Nevertheless, a provost of a public university branch campus (KP6)

accentuated his dissatisfaction with the issue of R&D funds given by the government

for his university. He complained about the inequitable distribution of funds for R&D

amongst public universities. He said:

126

When there are enough funds, lecturers will have better chances of conducting

research. But, the reality is not like that. Funds are not equally allocated for

each university. The government gives more funds for the established research

universities such as UPM, UKM, UM and USM. The balance of those funds is

then being disseminated among other universities…For my university, the

allocated funds are small, and we still need to divide this small number of

funds between all branches. In my branch, the management tries to divide the

funds given as equal as we can to lecturers who want to conduct any research

(KP6 – Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

This is similar to the issue presented in the preceding section, where it was

questioned about different practices of universities across the sector. Furthermore, the

policy and practices of the Ministry of Higher Education in allocating support and

research grants to certain ‘big and well-established public universities’ were

questioned by the other public universities, as it was seen to broaden the quality gaps

between those big universities and the other universities (Mohd Noor, 2007b). This

was perceived by KP6 as a potential trigger to academics’ dissatisfaction who work in

the non-established universities because of the smaller amount of research grant they

could apply for.

As a conclusion, based on the discussion among the interview respondents,

issue of funds for R&D was a pertinent one that potentially influences academics’

satisfaction.

4.3.2 Support for academics to further their studies

Five interview respondents (KP5, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-6, FG2-1) mentioned

that they were satisfied with the support given by the government and their

universities, in particular support for them to further their studies. It was perceived by

a lecturer (FG1-1: Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007) that this is a golden

opportunity and was a special benefit granted to him (and the university’s academic

staff). He further elaborated that in private universities there are no opportunities to

upgrade academics’ career paths, academic qualifications, and skills.

In a related sense, a tutor (FG1-6) compared his opportunities with the

difficulties faced by his academic colleagues in private universities:

127

I am satisfied with the opportunity and scholarship given to me to further my

study…In a public university (like his university), the opportunity given to

academic staff to further study is wider compared to any private universities.

Based on my conversations with several academic colleagues from private

universities, they have no chance to further their studies. In some cases, the

universities (private universities) do not provide any monetary support for

their academics to further studies. They need to use their own pocket money if

they want to (further studies) (FG1-6 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October

2007).

The arguments of FG1-6 reflect that some of the well-established public

universities and most of the private higher educational institutions have a very strict

policy on sending academics to further studies. Academics in the well-established

public universities need to go through a very stringent process of getting a place to

further their studies because their universities wanted to spend their monetary funds

only for their most capable academics which in turn will benefit the university.

On the other hand, as others have found (Din, 2001), there were very scarce

chances for academics in private higher educational institutions to further their studies

because most of the institutions have no specific budget for the needs of academic

development.

4.3.3 Policy on university-industry partnership

Collaboration between higher education and industry is perceived as beneficial

to the universities in Malaysia (Mohd Noor, 2007a; Utusan Malaysia, 2007). The

former Minister of Higher Education, Mustapha Mohamed believed effective

collaborations would help universities ensure that curriculum and research are abreast

of current needs and to develop knowledge workers needed by industry (Utusan

Malaysia, 2007). The government has initiated such collaborations in order to develop

the higher educational sector, provide commercial opportunities and job opportunities

for graduates, with the possibility of transferring high-end technologies, expertise and

development from the industries to the universities.

A former Minister of Higher Education of Malaysia (KP4) stressed the

importance of linkages between academics, universities, private sectors and the

128

industries and potential benefits to all parties in terms of research and development

(R&D):

The Ministry (of higher education) and universities are very serious in

nurturing and producing a lot of research and development outcomes and then

commercialising these outcomes through the industry….we must have strong

linkages among academics, universities, industry and private sector (KP4 –

Key-person Interview, 28 October 2010).

So, picking up the R&D theme of the previous section, now we see that R&D linked

to commercialisation is also key to Malaysian development especially in the public

higher educational sector.

In regards to job satisfaction, the dean of a faculty (KP1) believed that

academics will gain benefits through good relationships between universities and

industries. She argued:

Lecturers also benefited from this university-industrial relationship in terms of

opportunities to expand their academic and industrial experience and numbers

of research and development (R&D) projects done in their core academic area.

This will be very significant to their job satisfaction (KP1 – Key-person


The head of department of a university (KP3) was also satisfied with the present

linkages of university-industry which have also benefited university students:

From the aspect of collective relationship between lecturers, university and

industries, I would say that all local universities really want to nurture this

kind of relationship in order to seek out solutions for assisting graduates who

are hard to find jobs in industries (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26 October

2007).

She further argued that ‘…one of the benefits is we could match our students

with the right workplaces through their practical training in several industries’ (KP3 –


129

However, it is interesting here that these key-persons are mostly talking of

how these developments benefit the organisation, the graduates, and the industries

rather than talking about this in terms of their own or academics’ job satisfaction.

On the other hand, the government needs to be aware of the negative

consequences of the policy of nurturing the university-industrial relationship on

academics especially their satisfaction. Too much pressure on academic staff to

uphold the effort of university-industry partnership tends to influence their work

attitudes including their job satisfaction. This is argued by a lecturer (FG1-3):

If the government want academics to get involved and collaborate with

industry, an analysis needs to be conducted first to seek out benefits and

importance for us the academics. If they could list out the benefits, it will be

fine with us (academics), there is no reason why we should refuse to

collaborate with the industry… (FG1-3, Focus Group Interview, 26 October

2007).

The lecturer (FG1-3) further asserted that any new policy should be carefully

implemented and not impact on academics’ heavy teaching roles:

…they (the government and the university) must confirm that we (academics)

are not stressed by this new policy… we still need to teach and carry out a lot

of responsibilities in the university. Make sure that this (new policy) will not

have any negative consequences on our job satisfaction (FG1-3, Focus Group


The same intonation of response was given by a head of department (KP5)

about the potential of drawbacks from the implementation of university-industry

partnership policy on academics:

Regarding to the involvement of lecturers in industries, we know that

academics have in-depth and vast knowledge. Why do they not share it with

industries and the public? In the same time, we need to be concerned with the

(policy of university-industry partnership’s) drawbacks. Say, the intrusion on

lecturers working time in university. University management should see

potential problems that arise from this matter and they should manage it

wisely. University needs to provide ample time and freedom for lecturers to do

130

their work and also the involvement with the industry (KP5 – Key-person

Interview, 1 November 2007).

Hence, if the government wants the academics to get involved and collaborate

with the industry, respondents believe that they need to implement it in a way that

does not lead to academics being overloaded. A senior lecturer cum a program

coordinator of a public university branch (KP8) expanded on this issue. He believed

that this development had influenced his job satisfaction:

We (academics) are satisfied if the ministry (of higher education) and

university could help us balance our time for teaching and our involvement in

industry. If we have too much burden on lecturing, how could we spend

enough time to get involve with the industry? (KP8 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

As a conclusion, even though the issue of policy on university-industry

partnership was not discussed by the majority of the respondents in the qualitative

study, from these quotes and literature it appears to be an issue to be further

investigated.

4.3.4 Internationalisation of public universities

Malaysian universities’ focal goal is to become world-class (Badawi, 2007).

This goal has encouraged each university to upgrade the quality and quantity of its

human resources, physical facilities, research and development program and

curriculum. To attain world-class status, universities must be prepared to face the

challenge of global competition, adopt more complex multidimensional strategic

objectives, and change physical attributes, mindset and learning activities (Hagen,

2002).

The issue of the internationalisation of public universities and its association

with academics’ job satisfaction caught the attention of several interview respondents

(KP2, KP3, KP4 and FG2-2). The Former Minister of Higher Education (KP4) and

the Deputy Vice Chancellor (KP2) also highlighted the importance of the

internationalisation effort of the higher educational sector in Malaysia.

131

The ability to be at the world-class standard will ensure that higher education

institutions in Malaysia could be at the same level of universities in other developed

countries like United States of America, United Kingdom and Australia. The former

higher education minister (KP4) pointed out:

Linkages among local universities and international universities in term of

internationalisation also need to be fostered. That’s why we (Ministry of

Higher Education) created another specific task for the Deputy Vice

Chancellor which focused on internationalisation. Through the effort of

internationalisation, we could afford to send our professors abroad to gain

more experience and share their knowledge internationally. We also attained a

huge opportunity to have foreign professors be attached to several local

universities and share their knowledge and skills with us. In some way, our

local universities became credible and eminent internationally because of its

quality (KP4 – Key-person Interview, 28 October 2007).

The former minister also stated that through this internationalisation concept:

…vast opportunities given to our academics to further their studies abroad and

we (the higher education ministry) are really proud that local universities are

well-known all over the world (KP4 – Key-person Interview, 28 October

2007).

The Deputy Vice Chancellor (KP2) supported the ministry’s points when he

discussed:

For the university, the only way to be recognised internationally is to

implement a comprehensive academic system which comprised an

international standard of syllabus, teaching and learning process and practice,

research and development, academics’ knowledge and skills, facilities,

supporting staff and so on (KP2 – Key-person Interview, 25 October 2007).

He further expressed:

….everybody in the university, supporting staff, academics, administrators,

management board, stakeholders, without any hesitation, should share the

same mission (to become internationally recognised) and work hard for it

(KP2 – Key-person Interview, 25 October 2007).

132

However, the strategy and effort towards the internalisation of higher

educational sector is also argued to lead to dissatisfaction among academics. For

example, department director (KP3) stated:

In contrast, maybe some lecturers will be stressed because they need to uphold

the university’s mission to go international that seems to be too ambitious.

Too much pressure to become an international level university make us

lecturers be dissatisfied (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26 October 2007).

Correspondingly, a lecturer (FG2-2) boasted of his dissatisfaction towards the issue of

internationalisation of higher education. He elaborated:

It is good (the policy of internationalising higher educational sector)… we

(academics) admit that is beneficial for everybody. Our only concern is: do

you (the government and university) think we are ready and capable to be at

that (international) level? I tell you that since the past two years, we

(academics in his university) had been pushed to restructure our syllabus, to

modify the way we deliver our lectures, to justify how our research could be

accepted internationally. You see, too much burden! I don’t know with others

(the academic staff) but personally, I am not satisfied! (FG2-2 – Focus Group


Hence, even though internationalisation of higher education is viewed by the

former higher education minister (KP4) and university managers as key to the

development of universities, at the operational level, it is linked to work overload. The

issue and findings of work overload will be further discussed in the organisational

factor of satisfaction in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.

133

4.3.5 Expansion of Issues of GUPS in the Qualitative Study into the

Quantitative study

From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in focus groups,

it was clear that GUPS were generally perceived as an influential factor and giving

significant implications that further leads to academics’ job satisfaction. Apart from

the findings, the study also showed that there were four different specific issues being

spoken of by respondents which were perceived as sources of satisfaction in regards

to GUPS. These issues were funds for research and development activities, support

for academics to further their studies, policy on university-industry partnership, and

internationalisation of public universities.

Overall satisfaction and each sub-issue on GUPS differed based on different

categories of demographic backgrounds among interview respondents. These were

interesting and therefore, regarded by the study as important dimension to be included

in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection- the quantitative study. The

questions included in the particular survey instrument had been tested in a pilot study,

and the results of the reliability of the instrument were discussed in Chapter 3.

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with GUPS

among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to be

answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with government and

university policies and support?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with GUPS among academics by

different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in current

university, and holding a management position or not?

4.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with the government

and universities support and policies in the quantitative study. The scale of

‘Satisfaction with Government and University Policies and Support’ was used in the

quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction towards the specified

antecedent. Four items included in this measure were based on the literature reviews

134

findings and from the key issues that were initiated from the key findings in

interviews with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study.

The section presents descriptive analysis of mean, percentage, frequency, and

means comparisons in order to explain the data. On top of that, independent sample t-

tests, one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc tests

were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with GUPS by

different demographic backgrounds.

4.4.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with GUPS

To determine the level of satisfaction with the government and university

policies and support among respondents, frequencies and percentages of responses of

all respondents from the three participating public universities were calculated, and

mean and standard deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. The results of each

questions used in the measure were depicted in Table 4.3.

The mean value of responses were computed and categorised into 3 interval

level of responses accordingly to the work of Akpofure et al. (2006), DeMato (2001)

and Goff (2004). The interval level of satisfaction responses were 1= low (mean score

of 1.00-2.33), 2= moderate (2.34-3.67) and 3= high (3.68-5.00). Table 4.3 presents the

scores for each of the four questions on GUPS satisfaction responded by survey

respondents. All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 2 and Question

4) were reverse-coded. These negative-worded questions remained the same as what

been included in the quantitative study in order to show the norms of the original

questions.

For Question 1: The government (through the university) gives a holistic

support (in terms of monetary, physical, and morale) for me to develop my career as

an academic, majority of respondents scored agree (f=598, %=55.5) and agree very

much (f=240, %=22.3). On the other hand, the lowest score was disagree very much

(f=31, %=2.9).

135

Table 4.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Satisfaction

with GUPS

Responses (n=1078)

Question

1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 1: The government

(through the university)

gives a holistic support

(in terms of monetary,

physical, morale, etc)

for me to develop my

career as an academic

(Mean= 3.87, SD=0.94)

31 2.9 81 7.5 128 11.9 598 55.5 240 22.3

Question 2# :

I am not satisfied with

the support given by the

government and

university in research

and development

activities.

(Mean= 3.32, SD=1.14)

63 5.8 270 25.0 124 11.5 496 46.0 125 11.6

Question 3:

Academics gain multiple

benefits from the

university-industrial

relationship. (Mean=

3.65, SD=1.01)

44 4.1 108 10.0 217 20.1 518 48.1 191 17.7

Question 4 #:

Policies and efforts on

internationalisation in

my university burdened

me to do my job.

(Mean= 3.09, SD=1.13)

83 7.7 306 28.4 209 19.4 389 36.1 91 8.4

Note: Negative-worded questions remained the same as in the quantitative study in order to

demonstrate the norms of the original questions.

n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage, 1=disagree very

much, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=agree very much. # = Negatively

worded question.

Based on the responses on Question 1, academics reflected a high level of

satisfaction in term of the government and universities general support (Mean=3.87,

SD=0.94). The findings on this question support the findings in the qualitative study

where academics comprehended the positive implications of government and

universities support towards their satisfaction. As a lecturer (FG1-1) and a tutor (FG1-

6) in the qualitative interviews highlighted their satisfaction with the support given

specifically in terms of scholarships given by the government for them to further their

136

studies, responses in the survey confirmed the same sense of satisfaction among the

respondents.

Question 2: I am not satisfied with the support given by the government and

university in research and development activities, is a negatively worded question.

Hence, after respondents’ scores were reverse coded, the results show that the highest

score among respondents was disagree (f= 496, %=46), while the lowest score was

agree very much (f=63, %=5.8). This reflects that most of the respondents were

satisfied with the support given by the government and university in research and

development activities. This is to be expected since some of the interview respondents

in the qualitative study mentioned that they were very happy with the fundamental

and monetary support provided by the government in terms of research and

development activities. However, based on the overall responses on Question 2,

respondents reflected a moderate level of satisfaction in terms of government and

university’s support in research and development activities (Mean=3.32, SD=1.14).

For Question 3: Academics gain multiple benefits from the university-

industrial relationship, the results show that the highest score among respondents was

agree (f=518, %=48.1), while the lowest score was disagree very much (f=44,

%=4.1). This finding enriched the findings in the qualitative study where academics

mostly agree that they were satisfied with the particular issues of university-industrial

relationship. Most of the key-persons in the qualitative interview regarded that this

factor is not only beneficial for the public universities, students, and the society, but

also for academic staff members. As elaborated by KP1 (in section 4.2.3), academics

benefited in terms of gaining industrial experience and an involvement in R&D

programs. Nonetheless, based on the responses on Question 3, respondents reflected a

moderate level of satisfaction in terms of gaining multiple benefits from the

university-industrial relationship (Mean= 3.65, SD=1.01).

For Question 4: Policies and efforts on internationalisation in my university

burdened me to do my job, after been reverse coded the results indicate that

respondents were divided nearly equal between those who responded that they

disagree and disagree very much (f=480, %=44.5) with those responded that they

agree and agree very much (f=389, %=36.1). This is important, indicating that

internationalisation policies and efforts were regarded as a burden by some

academics, whilst some of them did not think so.

137

Furthermore, based on the responses on Question 4, academics were

moderately satisfied that the policies and efforts on internationalisation in their

universities created a burden (Mean=3.09, SD=1.13).

In accordance to the findings presented in Table 4.3, a further analysis was

undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction towards the government and

universities support and policies. The result shows that respondents had a moderate

level of overall satisfaction towards government and universities support and policies

(Mean= 3.49, SD=0.66).

The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the qualitative

interviews that GUPS had considerably impacted academics’ job satisfaction. The

findings also support the work of Ghazi, Ali, Shahzada and Israr (2010), where they

found that academics in a Pakistan university were moderately satisfied with the

dimension of government and organisational policies and practices.

The current study supports the outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support

on research provision of further education subsidies by the government and/or

universities were regarded as important attributes towards academics’ job satisfaction.

The findings in the current study also support Seashore and Taber’s (1975) assertion

that this variable is indeed relevant as an indicator or antecedent to job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural, and similar broad factors (in the

current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account to understand job satisfaction

(Seashore & Taber, 1975).

4.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS by Gender

An independent sample t-test was conducted in order to compare the

satisfaction with GUPS for males and females. Table 4.4 shows the t-test results for

satisfaction with GUPS among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that

there was no significant difference in scores for male academics (M=3.52, SD=0.67)

and female academics [M=3.44, SD=0.66; t (1041)= 1.91, p= 0.056].

Thus, we can conclude that there is no statistical significant difference in

satisfaction with GUPS by different gender among academics, even though male

academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their female counterparts. This

finding is similar to the responses pattern showed by respondents in the qualitative

138

interviews where there was no specific agreement on the overall level of satisfaction

towards GUPS between male and female respondents.

Table 4.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Gender

Variable

Group Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig.

(2-

tailed) Male

(n=533) Female

(n=510)

M SD M SD F Sig. t p

Government

& Universities

Policies &

Support

3.52

0.67

3.44

0.66

0.45

0.504

1041

1.91

0.056

Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for equality of

variance, df= Degree of Freedom, t= t-test value, p= significant value.

4.4.3 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to

explore the impact of age on levels of satisfaction with GUPS among academics.

Following Oshagbemi’s (1997) study on academics in the UK, respondents in the

online study were divided into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and

under; Group 2: 26 to 35; Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and

over).


Academics by Age

Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 6.783 4 1.696 4.745 0.004**

Within Groups 391.549 905 0.433

Total 398.332 909

Note: SS= Sum of Squares, df= Degree of Freedom, MS=Mean Square, F=F-Value, Sig=

significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05

139

Table 4.5 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with GUPS among

academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a statistically

significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with GUPS among the five

different age groups [F(4, 905)=3.919, p=0.004].

Table 4.6 below shows the results of post-hoc analysis for satisfaction with

GUPS among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of

satisfaction shown by the group of age between 46 and 55 years old (M=3.65,

SD=0.75), while the lowest mean scored was by the age group of 25 years old and

under (M=3.37, SD=0.73).

Table 4.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age

Age

Groups n Mean SD 25 &

under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under 47 3.37 0.73 -

26-35 442 3.48 0.59 NS -

36-45 255 3.40 0.67 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.65 0.75 NS NS * -

56 & over 24 3.59 0.86 NS NS NS NS -

Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, NS= not significant,

* indicates significance at p<0.05

Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who

were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.65, SD=0.75) had a significantly higher level of

satisfaction than their younger colleagues of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.40, SD=0.67).

No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other groups.

Therefore, it was evidenced that older academics in this age group were significantly

more satisfied than the younger ones towards GUPS. This might be so because older

academics had been through a satisfactory experience with GUPS as compared to

younger academics; seeing the improvement in their working lives as the government

increasingly emphasized education.

As mentioned by a 46 years old department director (KP3), she was satisfied

with GUPS and she believes that the government and universities policies and support

are purely aimed to generate not only the well-being of the university and its

academic staff, but also to nurture that well-being to the benefit of the public

140

generally. The 52 years old Deputy Vice Chancellor admitted that he became more

satisfied with the policy and practice of the government and his university when he

gets older and older. This is so, because he believes that the way of thinking as an

academic is getting matured based on one’s perspective towards his career

development and the environment of their workplace-which is the university (KP2 –


A similar work with the current study was done by Ali, Shaharudin and Anuar

(2012) among academics in a public university situated at the northern region of

Malaysia. They found that older and more experienced academics have a higher

career satisfaction level with several factors including the changes and development

of the university’s policy. Furthermore, based on some of the major theme emerged

from the open-ended responses by the young academics in their study, reflected that

they were disappointed because the university applied a more stringent policy on

promotion on them compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42). This

particular finding in the current study is a key outcome in this research since there

were no past studies findings on the differences of satisfaction with GUPS especially

among academic staff based on different categories of age.

4.4.4 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Tenure


explore the impact of tenure in the current university on levels of satisfaction with

GUPS among academics. Respondents in the online study were divided into four

groups according to their tenure in the current university (Group 1: 10 years and

under; Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21 to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).


Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 3.402 3 1.134 2.587 0.052

Within Groups 393.536 898 0.438

Total 396.938 901



141

Table 4.7 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with GUPS among

academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically

significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with GUPS among the four

different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=2.587, p=0.052]. Therefore, there were no

significant differences existed between academics in any of the groups of tenure with

GUPS. This finding of a large scale of academics in the three participating

universities did not support the findings in the qualitative study. In regards to the

findings in the qualitative study, almost all junior academics (who work for the

university for less than ten years) admitted that they were satisfied with GUPS while

only two seniors stated that they were satisfied with GUPS.

4.4.5 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Management

Position


satisfaction with GUPS for academics holding management position and those

academics not holding any management position in the university.


Management Position

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Government

& Universities

Policies &

Support

3.57

0.67

3.42

0.65

0.80

0.37

927

3.42

0.00**



** Significant at p<0.05

142

Table 4.8 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with GUPS among academics

by management position. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant

difference in scores for academics that hold a management position (M=3.42,

SD=0.65) and academics that do not hold a management position [M=3.57, SD=0.67;

t (927)= 3.42, p<0.05]. Thus, academics without management position were more

satisfied than those who hold a management position.

These findings are in accordance to the findings of the qualitative interviews,

where academics in the operational level were mostly satisfied with GUPS, as

described by a tutor (FG1-6):

For me these developments really influence academics’ job satisfaction… I

believe that every single policy, trend or new development structured by the

government and university is able to spark our work motivation, improve the

quality of our work, and could help to produce quality students… it really

helps academics to feel satisfied with their job (FG1-6 – Focus Group


The tutor described that the government and university’s support effects academics

work and provide a supporting system that assist with research, career, and potential

promotions in the university. Maybe those in management positions were less

satisfied as they were responsible for enacting or putting into practice the policies.

This is evidenced by the comments made by the provost of a public university

branch campus (KP6) where he thought that to be as a head or supervisor in a

department, ‘one will find the difficulties to focus on his/her academic work such as

research or academic writing when most of the time, the attention should be given to

the management tasks’ (KP6 – Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

However, the above findings is not supported by the work of Ali et al. (2012),

where they found that there was no significant difference between job position and

career satisfaction among academics in their study.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter has first discussed the qualitative interviews with key-persons and focus

groups in regard to the satisfaction with GUPS. Secondly, the findings of the

143

qualitative study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study

pertaining to the satisfaction of academics towards GUPS.

The summary for the findings of satisfaction towards (GUPS) were depicted in

Table 4.10. Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the

interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction towards GUPS. These

were funds for research and development activities, support for academics to further

their studies, policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of

public universities. In each key issue, the discussions moved from satisfaction to

dissatisfaction.

Interview respondents tended to express their satisfactions with the support

given by the government and their universities, in particular support for them to

further studies. The policy on university-industry partnership was responded as a

factor that led to satisfaction and dissatisfaction among respondents. On the other

hand, funds for research and development activities and internationalisation of public

universities led to dissatisfactions among interview respondents.

144

Table 4.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with GUPS

Government

and

Universities

Policies

and Support (GUPS)

Interview Findings (n=17)

Survey Findings (n=1078)

Overall

Satisfaction Arising Issues

Overall Satisfaction

Gender Age Tenure Hold Management

Position or Not Mostly satisfied (9 respondents)

1. Most of the satisfied

respondents on the

overall satisfaction

towards GUPS were

those in the

operational level.

2. Specific issues raised: - Funds for research

and development activities - Support for academics to further their studies - Policy on university-industry partnership - Internationalisation of public universities

Moderate

(Mean= 3.49,

SD= 0.66)

No significant

difference

between males

and female

Older academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference between seniors and juniors

Academics without

management position

were more satisfied

Note: N = total respondents, = There was a significant difference in satisfaction scores

145

In the quantitative study, together with their overall job satisfaction responses,

there were differences of responses of GUPS by respondents based on different

categories of demographic backgrounds. They were age, gender, tenure in current

university and whether one holds a management position or not.

In summary, there were several key findings revealed in this chapter through

the qualitative interviews and quantitative study. Firstly, four key factors that lead to

academics satisfaction towards GUPS were confirmed through the qualitative

interviews. The key factors as stated earlier were funds for research and development

activities, support for academics to further their studies, policy on university-industry

partnership and internationalisation of public universities. These were initially

revealed in the qualitative interviews and confirmed in the quantitative study as

important considerations in satisfaction with GUPS.

Secondly, there were different types of ideas shared by the interview

respondents on each of the four key factors based on different types of demographic

backgrounds, by academics that hold management positions compared to those at the

operational level.

Thirdly, academics in the qualitative interviews were generally satisfied with

government and universities support and policies, but the level of satisfaction was not

yet defined. Hence, in a broader scale of respondents in the survey, the satisfaction

level with GUPS has been sought and the satisfaction among academics was

moderate. The finding in the quantitative study on the general level of satisfaction

with GUPS supported the work of Ghazi et al. (2010), where they found that

academics in a Pakistan university were moderately satisfied with the dimension of

government and organisational policies and practices.

This might be so, based on the fact that not all academics in Malaysian public

universities seemed to feel satisfied with the policies and support of the Government.

As mentioned by Thillaisundaram (2003: 19), academics in Malaysian higher

education institutions were mostly ‘been exposed to the educational system applied in

various developed countries when they were there to further their education’. Their

experience with the policies imposed by the foreign educational authorities where

they were furthering their studies, gave them the understanding and mind-set of what

are lacking in the Malaysian higher educational policies and system. When the

Malaysian Government could not practice and implement the same level of beneficial

policies such as the support for research and development activities, status-quo as

146

respected academics in the society, the perks and benefits given, and economic

stability, this was regarded as a key dissatisfactory cause that affected their level of

job satisfaction.

Additionally, based on the quantitative study findings, there were no

significant differences of satisfaction with GUPS based on different gender and tenure

of the academics. In regards to the findings related to gender, this was so because

there is no such policy, program, or strategy implementation that is different between

genders, where both genders are treated equally. This is based on the assertion of Raja

Zainal Abidin (2007) where the government without having any special focus on any

racial group, ethnicity, religion and including gender, has given a lot of subsidies and

monetary allocation to develop the nation’s human capital which is one of the

prerequisites of attaining higher value-added growth based on the recent global trends

and development of knowledge and technology. However older academics were

significantly more satisfied than the younger ones, and academics without any

management position were more satisfied than those with management positions.

In terms of the higher satisfaction with GUPS among older academics, this can

be predicted, since the outcome of the current study supports the work of Ali et al.

(2012). They had investigated academics in a public university situated at the northern

region of Malaysia where they found that older and more experienced academics have

a higher career satisfaction level with several factors including the changes and

development of the university’s policy. Furthermore, based on some of the major

theme emerged from the open-ended responses by the young academics in their study,

reflected that they were disappointed because the university applied a more stringent

policy on promotion on them compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42).

This particular finding in the current study is a key outcome in this research since

there were no past studies findings on the differences of satisfaction with GUPS

especially among academic staff based on different categories of age.

In regards to the findings that academics without management position were

more satisfied than those who hold a management position, the current finding is

opposing the outcome of Ali et al. (2012). As evidenced in the interviews with key-

persons and focus-group members in the qualitative study, those with the management

position have lower satisfaction with GUPS because they were burdened with the

responsibilities they hold and the needs to uphold the policies implemented by the

Government and university. For example, a key-person (KP6) admitted that he cannot

147

feel the freedom of doing what an academic should do (for example teaching,

conducting research, and writing academic articles) because the attention at the

workplace should be given to the management tasks.

It is worth to ponder that these particular findings of satisfaction with GUPS

among academics based on different demographic characteristics were key outcomes

in this research. Since there was no literature stating any similar findings especially

among academic staff, these were of importance in filling the gap of knowledge on

the satisfaction towards government and universities’ policies and support.

Fourthly, this chapter demonstrates the development of areas explored and

elaborated on from the key interview responses which showed that GUPS is an

important factor of academics’ satisfaction. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the

current study supports outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support on research

provision of further education subsidies by the government and/or universities were

regarded as important attributes towards academics’ job satisfaction. This was part of

the major issues argued by key-persons and focus group members in the qualitative

study which reflected the importance of including GUPS as a significant antecedent of

job satisfaction among academics.

The findings in this chapter also support Seashore and Taber’s (1975)

assertion that this variable (GUPS) is indeed relevant as an indicator or antecedent to

job satisfaction. Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural, and similar

broad factors (in the current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account to

understand job satisfaction (Seashore & Taber, 1975: 349). This role was evidenced

by thorough discussions among key-persons and focus group interview respondents

on various GUPS issues which led to the outcomes of four major issues (which were

funds for research and development activities, support for academics to further their

studies, policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of public

universities) that influence academics job satisfaction (see Table 4.2 in page 7). Thus,

the relationship between GUPS as one of the antecedents of job satisfaction with

overall job satisfaction among university academics will be further explored

empirically in Chapter 8. Next, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 will discuss the satisfaction

with organisational factors using the findings of the qualitative interviews and

quantitative study.

148

Chapter 5

ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

PAY, PROMOTION, SUPERVISION, FRINGE BENEFITS AND

CONTINGENT REWARDS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the key organisational antecedents of academics’ job satisfaction

specifically pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards,

based on qualitative study through key-person interviews and focus groups conducted

with respondents from three public universities in November and December 2007.

Furthermore, this chapter details the findings of the quantitative study through a

quantitative study participated by academics from three participating universities from

November 2008 to March 2009. In this chapter these antecedents are presented in

several organisational categories based on the studies of Oshagbemi (1997), Spector

(1997), Mohd Noor (2004), and Akpofure (2006).

The aims of this chapter were first, to understand respondents’ impressions

and satisfactions on each of the organisational antecedents through a qualitative

method and then to investigate differences based on respondents’ demographic

backgrounds. Second, to further investigate a larger sample of respondents through a

quantitative method of data collection. The study also aims to investigate differences

in satisfaction with each of the organisational antecedents among academics by

different type of demographic backgrounds.

Satisfaction with organisational factors of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and

communication were identified by past research as influential antecedents of job

satisfaction and the study focused and explored the antecedents of pay, promotion,

supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. In the next chapter, the other

organisational antecedents of job satisfaction which are operating conditions, co-

workers, nature of work, and communication will be elaborated. In Chapter 8, the

149

study expands on this and tests the relationships between satisfaction with

organisational factors and overall job satisfaction.

The chapter is structured in 7 sections. In section 5.1, the data categorised as

satisfaction with pay is presented. The next sections categorise satisfaction as

satisfaction with promotion, satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with fringe

benefits, satisfaction with contingent rewards, satisfaction with operating conditions,

satisfaction with co-workers, satisfaction with nature of work and satisfaction with

communication. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 5.1.

Section

Description




study and quantitative study specifically on pay

satisfaction.


study and quantitative study specifically on promotion

satisfaction.


study and quantitative study specifically on

supervision satisfaction.


study and quantitative study specifically on fringe

benefits satisfaction.


study and quantitative study specifically on contingent

rewards satisfaction.


qualitative study and quantitative study and concludes

the chapter pertaining to satisfaction with pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits and contingent

rewards.


5.1 Introduction

5.2 Pay Satisfaction

5.3 Promotion Satisfaction

5.4 Supervision Satisfaction

5.7 Conclusion

5.5 Fringe Benefits

Satisfaction

5.6 Contingent Rewards

Satisfaction

150

Each organisational antecedent is structured in three sub-sections. First, the

general feelings of satisfaction with each antecedent of interview respondents are

detailed. Secondly, issues that were raised by all interview respondents regarding

satisfaction with each antecedent are elaborated. Thirdly, descriptive findings of the

quantitative study in regards with academics’ satisfaction with each antecedent are

presented.

5.2 Pay Satisfaction

5.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Pay

Pay has been typically used as a career barometer to measure status and equity

in the workplace and has been shown to affect morale positively or negatively (Laden

& Hagedorn, 2000:62). Spector (1997) deems pay as one of the key antecedents that

impacts an individual worker’s job satisfaction. Also, as evidenced by a meta analysis

on the antecedents of job satisfaction conducted by Brown and Peterson (1993), pay is

one of the most significant and important indicators of job satisfaction.

In each of the interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a

question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with pay. In the

interview with the former Minister of Higher Education (KP4), this question was not

asked as he can not speak on the capacity as an academic, and this was also

implemented for the other antecedents of job satisfaction such as promotion,

supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers,

nature of work, and communication. These answers were coded based on whether

they spoke of these in terms of satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor

satisfied; or no response was given or it was unclear. Table 5.1 presents this data.

Based on the findings in Table 5.1, ten of the interview respondents were

satisfied with pay. They include all seven key-persons in management level (KP1,

KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, and KP8) and three focus group respondents who were

academics at the operational level (FG1-2, FG1-4, and FG1-5). One academic

mentioned that he is dissatisfied (FG2-1), while five said that they were neither

dissatisfied nor satisfied with pay (FG1-1, FG1-3, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-3).

151

Therefore, evidenced by responses of interview respondents, all academics in

the management level were happy and satisfied with pay. On the other hand,

academics without any management position provided varied responses, where mostly

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with pay, notwithstanding that some of them

regarded pay as a satisfaction or dissatisfaction factor.

As assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in Chapter 2

and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents, it was clearly

shown that academics considered pay as an influential factor that contributed to their

job satisfaction. Furthermore, all interview respondents initiated further discussions

on their general state of satisfaction pertaining to pay.

Table 5.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with pay


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Satisfied KP2 Satisfied

KP3 Satisfied KP4 - KP5 Satisfied KP6 Satisfied KP7 Satisfied KP8 Satisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied FG1-2 Satisfied FG1-3 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied FG1-4 Satisfied FG1-5 Satisfied FG1-6 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Dissatisfied FG2-2 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

FG2-3 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

5.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents

Ten of the key-person and focus group interviewees responded that pay

contributed to their satisfaction and that they were generally happy with it. Their

mutual agreement on the positive contribution of pay towards their job satisfaction

was illustrated by four responses by KP5, KP8, FG1-4, and FG1-5, as follows:

152

I bet whoever works as an academic in our (Malaysian) public university is

pleased with the salary he earns (KP5 – Key-person Interview, 1 November

2007).

I am more than happy with what (pay rate) I have now. I believe all academics

in this university should feel the same way like I do (KP8 – Key-person


…of all, salary is among the most satisfying factors. Money is very important

to help me manage my life, and the amount of my salary is equal with job

burdens I do (FG1-4 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

To work as a lecturer is not easy, and it is really challenging. Some lecturers

think that they are supposed to get a better salary, but I am satisfied with the

amount of pay I earn now… (FG1-5 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October

2007).

5.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents


generally satisfied with pay, there were also a respondent who brought up his

dissatisfaction in the interviews. A young tutor (FG2-1) argued that salary is not a key

driver towards his satisfaction but more towards dissatisfaction. He asserted that:

I do know that some of my friends who work elsewhere in private sector being

paid with a far better and higher salary rate compared to what I got here. I am

totally not happy with my salary (FG2-1 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October

2007).

The tutor seemed to be disappointed with his salary scheme provided by his

university. The tutor compares his earning to what his colleagues earn in the private

academic sector. This finding corresponded to what argued by Spector (1996:42)

where most employees are not concerned that people in other jobs earn more than

they do, but they are often quite concerned that people in the same job earn more.

153

The tutor further argued:

I think the university should revise the salary rate (of tutor like him)…. they

must do something on this central factor if they want to attract more potential

candidates out there to fill up this academic post (tutor)’. Sometimes, I feel

sorry for myself for working here (in the university) (FG2-1 – Focus Group


It may be that at the lower levels of the university hierarchy, dissatisfaction

with pay is evidenced compare to those who are at the higher hierarchy levels in the

universities.

From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in focus

groups, it was clear that pay was generally perceived as an influential factor and with

significant implications that further leads to academics’ job satisfaction. The study

showed that both were being spoken of by respondents in regards to pay.

Based on the interviews key-persons expressed their satisfaction with pay was

an interesting findings which reflect that academics in management level seemed

satisfied with the salary they earned. On the other hand, mixed responses given by

both focus group respondents show that some of their satisfaction was driven by pay

while some did not share the same mutual opinion.

These findings therefore, are regarded by the current study as an important

dimension to be included in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection- the

quantitative study. Also, as evidenced by a meta analysis on the antecedents of job

satisfaction conducted by Brown and Peterson (1993), and the descriptive analysis of

job satisfaction among university academics in Pakistan by Bashir et al. (2012), pay is

one of the most significant and important indicators of job satisfaction. Hence,

findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with pay among

academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to be answered

through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with pay?

2. Are there any differences in pay satisfaction among academics by different

type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in current university,

and holding a management position or not?

154

5.2.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Pay

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with pay in the

quantitative study. Spector’s (1997) pay questionnaire in Job Satisfaction Survey

(JSS) was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction

with pay. Five items included in this measure to measure satisfaction with pay were

suitable to reflect key findings in interviews with key informants and focus groups in

the qualitative study.




were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with pay by

different demographic backgrounds. Note that the same analyses were also made on

the other organisational antecedents of job satisfaction.

5.2.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Pay

Table 5.2 presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for each of

the five questions on pay satisfaction responded to by survey respondents. All

responses for negatively worded questions (Question 6, 7, and 8) were reverse-coded.

For Question 5: I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do, about

half of the overall respondents scored agree (f=544, %=50.5). On the other hand, the

lowest score was disagree very much (f=58, %=5.4). It reflected that most of the

respondents agreed that they were fairly paid for the work they do. On the whole,

respondents showed a moderate score of satisfaction with pay using this question

(mean=3.39, SD=1.07).

Question 6: raises are too few was a negatively worded question. Hence, after

the scores were reverse-coded, findings show that most of the respondents responded

that they were dissatisfied and very dissatisfied with the rate of their salary raises

(f=523, %=48.5). This was further proven with the mean result for the question which

showed that overall respondents scored a low value of satisfaction with pay

(Mean=2.85, SD=1.11).

155

Table 5.2: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions

on Pay Satisfaction (N=1078)

Responses

(n=1078) Question

1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 5: I feel I am being paid a

fair amount for the

work I do. (Mean= 3.39, SD=1.07)

58 5.4 215 19.9 159 14.7 544 50.5 102 9.5

Question 6# : Raises are too few.

(Mean= 2.85, SD=1.20) 121 11.2 402 37.3 181 16.8 268 24.9 106 9.8

Question 7# :

Raises are too far

between.

(Mean= 3.01, SD=1.11)

84 7.8 314 29.1 281 26.1 307 28.5 92 8.5

Question 8#: I feel unappreciated by

the organisation when I

think about what they

pay me. (Mean= 3.24, SD=1.15)

78 7.2 251 23.3 205 19.0 422 39.1 122 11.3

Question 9: I feel satisfied with my

chances for salary

increases. (Mean=3.36, SD=1.04)

44 4.1 216 20.0 229 21.2 483 44.8 106 9.8

Note: Negative-worded questions were remained the same as in the quantitative study in order

to demonstrate the norms of the original questions.



worded question.

Responses by respondents on Question 7: Raises are too far between, were

fairly even between scores of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. A total of 398

respondents (36.9%) responded that they were dissatisfied and very dissatisfied while

399 respondents (37%) responded that they were satisfied and very satisfied. This

findings together with the total mean value for the particular question (Mean=3.01,

SD=1.11) mirrored a moderate score of satisfaction with pay.

Question 8: I feel unappreciated by the organisation when I think about what

they pay me is a negatively worded question. Hence, based on the reverse-coded

result, respondents seemed to answer that they felt appreciated by the university in

terms of pay amount. It also means that they were satisfied with the issue raised

through the question, where 544 respondents (50.4%) scored agree and agree very

156

much. Overall, respondents scored a moderate level of satisfaction with pay by this

question (Mean= 3.24, SD= 1.15).

Respondents of the quantitative study also scored a moderate level of

satisfaction with pay for Question 9 (Mean= 3.36, SD= 1.04). However, about half of

the total respondents of this question answered that they agree and agree very much

(f= 589, %=54.6).

In accordance with the findings presented in Table 5.2, a further analysis was

undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with pay. The result shows

that respondents had a moderate level of overall satisfaction with pay (Mean = 3.17,

SD=0.81) based on all four questions measuring the variable. This finding supports

similar outcome of Saygi et al. (2011) among academics in Fisheries Faculties at

Turkish universities, Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among university academics in

Nigeria, and Gabbidon and Higgins (2012) among criminal justice academics in the

United States of America, where respondents among academics in a were moderately

satisfied with pay.

However, the current study’s finding does not support the finding of

Oshagbemi (1999) among university academics in the UK, Akpofure et al. (2006)

among higher education academics in Nigeria,and Koustelios (2001) among teachers

in Greek, where pay was the least satisfying factor.

The other central finding was that this quantitative study outcome supported

the outcome of the qualitative study that pay had been substantially perceived by

academics as an important antecedent of job satisfaction. Ten of the key-person and

focus group interviewees had responded that pay contributed to their satisfaction, for

example, a statement made by an academic in focus group:

…of all, salary is among the most satisfying factors. Money is very important

to help me manage my life, and the amount of my salary is equal with job

burdens I do (FG1-4 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

Hence, it is worth further investigating if there were any differences of

responses on pay satisfaction among different type of academics’ demographic

backgrounds.

157

5.2.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender


satisfaction with pay for males and females. Table 5.3 shows the t-test results for

satisfaction with pay among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that

there was a significant difference in scores for male academics (M=3.26, SD=0.81)

and female academics [M=3.09, SD=0.80; t (1041)= 3.35, p= 0.01]. Thus, there is a

statistical significant difference in satisfaction with pay by different genders among

academics, where male academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their

female counterpart.

Table 5.3: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Pay

3.26

0.81

3.09

0.80

0.00

0.985

1041

3.35

0.001**

Note: n=total respondents, M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for

equality of variance, df= Degree of Freedom, t= t-test value, p= significant value.


Pertinent key findings here were, first, this finding opposes the outcome of

Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among Malaysian academic staff in higher education

institutions, where they found no significant difference on pay among the respondents

by gender. The current study finding is also found to be dissimilar with Roberts and

Chonko (1994) where males have slightly lower satisfaction with pay than females.

Next, the current study’s finding also went against the outcome of Okpara et al.

(2005) among university faculties in the United States of America, Abdulsalam and

Mawoli (2012) among university academics in Nigeria, and Arif et al. (2012) among

university teachers in Pakistan, where female employees were found to be

significantly more satisfied with pay than their male counterparts. Secondly, this

study’s finding supports Bittner and O’Conner (2011) in terms of satisfaction with

158

pay among nurse academics in the New England region, where males were more

satisfied with their salary than their female colleagues.

5.2.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Age


explore the impact of age on levels of satisfaction with pay among academics.

Following Oshagbemi’s (1997a) study, respondents in the online study were divided

into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and under; Group 2: 26 to 35;

Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and over).


Academics by Age


Between Groups 28.01 4 7.003 10.621 0.000**

Within Groups 596.67 905 0.659

Total 624.68 909

Note: SS= Sum of Squares, df= Degree of Freedom, MS=Mean Square, F=F-Value,

Sig=significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05

Table 5.4 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with pay among


significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with pay among the five

different age groups [F(4, 905)=10.621, p=0.00].

Table 5.5: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Age

Age Groups

(in years) n Mean SD 25 &

under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under 47 3.41 0.63 -

26-35 442 3.06 0.77 NS -

36-45 255 3.15 0.93 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.51 0.85 NS * * -

56 & over 24 3.52 0.77 NS NS NS NS -

Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, NS= not significant.


159

Table 5.5 above shows the results of post-hoc analysis for satisfaction with

pay among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of

satisfaction shown by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.52, SD=0.77), while the

lowest mean scored by the group of 25 years old and under (M=3.06, SD=0.77).

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who

were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.51, SD=0.85) had a significantly higher level of pay

satisfaction than their younger colleagues of 26 to 35 years old (M=3.06, SD=0.77)

and 36 to 45 years old (M=3.15, SD=0.93). No significant difference existed between

academics in any of the other groups. This finding is inconsistent with Akpofure et

al.’s (2006) where he found that in Nigeria, older academics were less satisfied with

pay than the younger academics.

5.2.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Tenure


explore the impact of tenure in the current university on levels of satisfaction with pay

among academics. Respondents in the online study were divided into four groups

according to their tenure in the current university (Group 1: 10 years and under;

Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21 to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).


Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 7.219 3 2.406 3.516 0.015**

Within Groups 614.538 898 0.684

Total 621.757 901



Table 5.6 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with pay among

academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a statistically

significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the four different

tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.516, p=0.015].


pay among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of

satisfaction shown by academics was for the group who have worked for 31 years and

160

over (M=3.40, SD=0.00), while the lowest mean scored by academics was in the

tenure group of 10 years and under (M=3.14, SD=0.79).

Table 5.7: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Tenure

Tenure (years) n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 3.14 0.79 -

11-20 147 3.38 1.01 * -

21-30 29 3.27 0.76 NS NS -

31 & over 3 3.40 0.00 NS NS NS -



Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who

have worked between 11 to 20 years (M=3.38, SD=1.01) had a significantly higher

level of pay satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under (M=3.14,

SD=0.79) No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other

groups of tenure.

Thus, it can be concluded that academics with a longer tenure had a

significantly higher pay satisfaction level as compared to their juniors. This finding is

opposite to Koustelios’s (2001) and Saygi et al. (2011) where they found that there

was no significant difference of pay satisfaction between different categories of tenure

or working experience groups among Greek teachers and Turkish academics.

5.2.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management

Position


satisfaction with pay for academics holding management position or not holding any

management position in the university. Table 5.8 shows the t-test results for

satisfaction with pay among academics by either holding management position or not.

The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in scores for

academics that hold a management position (M=3.12, SD=0.81) and academics that

do not hold any management position [M=3.27, SD=0.84; t (927)= 2.67, p<0.05].

161

The findings in the quantitative study oppose the findings in the qualitative

study. This is interesting because, whether the mean difference looked relatively small

(M= 0.15), the findings on the satisfaction with pay among a greater number of

respondents in the survey showed a considerable higher satisfaction among those

without a management position as compared to their management counterparts. Thus,

the conclusion is that academics without any management positions were more

satisfied in terms of pay compared to academics with management positions.

This current study’s results were different with the findings of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees without management position had a

lower level of satisfaction towards pay compared to the senior, middle, and first line

managers at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran.

Table 5.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management

Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold

any

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Pay

3.27 0.84 3.12 0.81 1.46 0.23 927 2.67 0.008**




5.2.3 Summary of Key Findings on Pay Satisfaction

In a nutshell, most of the key-person and some of focus group interview

respondents responded that they were satisfied with pay. This showed that pay was

perceived as a driver towards satisfaction more among management people. Some of

the interview respondents raised issues of equity where some of them claimed that

they get a lower rate of pay compared to academics in private universities. Other than

that, some academics in lower levels of the university hierarchy raised their concern

162

on the unjust pay scheme obtained by them as compared to those at the higher

hierarchy levels in the university.

Based on the quantitative study findings, it was evidenced that respondents

had a moderate level of satisfaction with pay. This finding supports similar outcomes

of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012), Gabbidon and Higgins (2012) and Saygi et al.

(2011), but is not in accordance to the findings of Oshagbemi (1999), Koustelios

(2001), Barrett and Yates (2002), and Akpofure et al. (2006), where they found pay

was the least satisfying factor. The current study findings confirmed the influence of

the Malaysian socio-economic context in shaping the satisfaction with pay among

university academics. As argued by Mohamed (2006), the need to have a better

financial income had became one of the priorities among the workers including

academics in developing countries such as Malaysia. To compare the amount of their

own salaries and the better salary earned by academics in other developed countries

such as Singapore, Taiwan and Australia may not be relevant, but in reality this

cannot be avoided among academics in Malaysia, especially among those in public

universities. Additionally, evidenced by the argument of a tutor (FG2-1) in the focus

group interview, academics in public universities keep comparing the better salary

rate that academics in private foreign universities in Malaysia enjoy with what they

earn, and this has a significant impact on their job satisfaction.

Furthermore, this is in accordance with the argument of Herzberg (1971)’s

Hygiene and Motivator theory where level of salary is one of the hygiene factors for a

worker. Hygiene means that it has a sense of medical resemblance because it

represents elements of the job which if removed or improved do not bring health but

merely prevent bad health (Sentovich, 2004). In this case, the current study’s finding

confirms the Herzberg’s theory that when the hygiene factor (pay) is dealt with, the

individual academic will find it easy to enjoy satisfaction from the other motivator

factors.

In the same sense of satisfaction with pay, males were more satisfied than

females and this supports the finding of Bittner and O’Conner (2011) but went against

the outcome of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) and Arif el al. (2012). In reality, there

were no differences in terms of pay earned by both male and female academics in

Malaysian Public Higher Educational Institutions (Ministry of Higher Education

Malaysia, 2006). However, based on these specific findings, females seemed to be

less satisfied because they may think that they should get higher pay to meet family

163

needs. This was evidenced by a statement of a female academic in Focus Group 2 in

the preliminary interview who reflected on her responsibilities for the family:

I don’t say that I am not happy with what I get (in terms of pay), but as a

mother of three kids and increasing socio-economic level in Malaysia, I think I

should be paid more...you know, to meet the needs of myself (and) my family

(FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

Older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones and this is

inconsistent with Akpofure et al.’s (2006) outcome where older academics were more

satisfied on pay compared to younger academics. Then, different to Koustelios’s

(2001) and Saygi et al. (2011)’s findings, it was found that in the current study, senior

academics were more satisfied with pay than juniors. This may be due to his longer

length of tenure and acceptance of the reality of the situation Or it may be due to the

older academic earning higher pay.

Finally, academics without management position were more satisfied than

those with management position and this is different to the finding by Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006). Those with management positions may feel that their pay

rates are too low due to the heightened levels of responsibility especially due to the

changes evident in the higher education sector. There are no similar findings that can

be found in the literature specifically on the satisfaction with pay among Malaysian

higher education academics by those holding management positions. Therefore, the

current study’s findings are considered as an important contribution in the realm of

pay satisfaction among academics higher education institutions with and without

management positions.

5.3 Satisfaction with Promotion

5.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Promotion

The next organisational factor that serves as one of the antecedents of

satisfaction is promotion. Brown (2008) and Spector (1997) believe that promotion

opportunity is one of the important indicators of an individual employee’s

satisfaction. In each of interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a

164

question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with promotion.

Table 5.9 presents this data.

Table 5.9: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with promotion


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied


KP3 Dissatisfied KP4 -




KP8 Dissatisfied

Focus Group

1



FG1-3 Dissatisfied FG1-4 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied


FG1-6 Unclear/no response

Focus Group

2


FG2-2 Satisfied


In regards to the findings in Table 5.9, only one lecturer with a non-

managerial position (FG2-2) mentioned that he is satisfied with promotion. Three

respondents (KP3, KP8, and FG1-3) said that they were dissatisfied with promotion.

The majority had stated that they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (KP1, KP2,

KP5, KP6, KP7, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-1, and FG2-3). FG1-6 had given

an unclear response towards the question.

Based on the overall responses in the interviews, satisfaction with promotion

had not being discussed thoroughly among the interview respondents. This specific

issue was also mentioned by the interview respondents. This showed that academics

did not recognise promotion as a dominant factor contributing towards their job

satisfaction. The findings are in contrast to Akpofure et al.’s (2006) and Mohd Noor’s

(2004) findings where workers tend to assess promotion as an important factor that

contributed to their overall job satisfaction.

165

5.3.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with

Promotion

Regarding this, a lecturer (FG2-2) from a focus group interview highlighted

his satisfaction through his statement:

To get promoted (for a higher rank) is really easy here (in the current

university) compared to what I’ve gone through before (in previous

organisation) (FG2-2 –Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

However, a dean of faculty believed that no matter how hardworking and

productive an academic was, he can be dissatisfied if his work was not recognised by

the university and then hampered his chance to be promoted to a better position in the

organisation. She gave an example:

This had happened to one of my senior lecturers few years back…. he was so

upset… when all his academic responsibilities had been completed, he still

could not be promoted. I felt sorry for him… the management neglected him

for no reason (KP1 – Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).

Three of the other interview respondents (KP3, KP8 and FG1-3) expressed

their dissatisfaction with promotion policy in their universities. A senior lecturer cum

a department director (KP3) gave a lengthy argument:

I think that young lecturers are not supposed to complain too much… We had

gone through so many procedures to get promoted. We work very hard,

publish many articles in journals, write a lot of books, and conduct research. It

took eight years to make us (seniors) to be eligible for a senior lecturer

application…. Then, to apply for professorship, the evaluation on our job only

started from the first year of being senior lecturer. Young lecturers nowadays

have no right to complain because the policy has changed. The procedure and

chances for promotion are not as strict as what we faced. At their age of 30 to

35 they could easily be promoted as a senior lecturer. Just imagine, at this

young age they could be a senior lecturer. Undeniable, they were so lucky, and

how pity we (senior lecturers) were! (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26 October

2007).

166

An Associate Professor (KP8) asserted the same dissatisfaction with the issue

of how easy young lecturers are promoted compared to seniors:

I think my fellow friends who are at the same age of me felt a bit dissatisfied

and unhappy in terms of promotion system. They had strived for ten years and

able to finish their PhD study… still it is hard to be promoted. Compared to

the young lecturers…today… very easy to be promoted even without PhD!

This is a set-back to senior lecturers like us (KP8 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

Hence, this is related to equity issue similar to pay. Academics evaluate their

situation with others and it is this evaluation or comparison that seems to lead to job

dissatisfaction. A lecturer in the focus group 1 (FG1-3) raised an issue of

misjudgement of the university management on academics performance in branch

campuses. His comment was:

I am upset with the process of promotion…. the university’s higher

management and evaluators misjudge our real working performance. If it

continues to be like this, there will be no point to work hard, it is useless.


In this instance, university management is argued as being unfair through their

erroneous judgement on the works and effort done by some academics which

subsequently affected the process and chance of promotion among academics. All in

all, it seems here that it is an antecedent but at these workplaces people are not clearly

satisfied or dissatisfied with the issue of promotion.

Based on the findings of the interview with key-persons and academics in

focus groups, promotion has not been clearly shown as either an indicator towards

academics satisfaction or dissatisfaction at workplace. They spoke of it but could not

clearly articulate whether they were happy or not with the policy and practice of

promotion in their universities respectively.

Furthermore, overall satisfaction with promotion seemed to be equally

distributed between dissatisfaction and satisfaction specifically academics in

management level and in the operational level. Thus, this leads to a further

investigation in a broader group of academics, in order to seek whether or not the

same findings will appear.

167

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with promotion



1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with promotion?

2. Are there any differences in promotion satisfaction among academics by



5.3.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Promotion

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with promotion

in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Promotion Satisfaction’ was used in the online

survey in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction with promotion. Four items

included in this measure were adapted from JSS’s questions which measure

promotion satisfaction.

5.3.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Promotion

Table 5.10 presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for each of

the four questions on promotion satisfaction responded by survey respondents.

Response for negatively worded question (Question 10) was reverse-coded.

Question 10: There is really too little chance for promotion on my job was a

negatively worded question. Hence, after the scores were reverse-coded, findings

have shown that more than half of the respondents responded that they were disagree

and disagree very much with the statement in the question (f=546, %=50.6). The

mean result for the question showed that respondents had a moderate level of

satisfaction with promotion (Mean=3.21, SD=1.07). Based on the findings for

Question 11, there were 776 respondents (72%) agreed that those who do well on the

job stand a fair chance of being promoted. The findings of mean value also reflected

that respondents scored a high value of promotion satisfaction through the question

(Mean=3.77, SD=0.99).

168

Table 5.10: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions

on Promotion Satisfaction (N=1078)

Responses (n=1078) Question

1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 10# : There is really too little

chance for promotion on

my job. (Mean= 3.21, SD=1.07)

66 6.1 259 24.0 207 19.2 479 44.4 67 6.2

Question 11: Those who do well on

the job stand a fair

chance of being

promoted. (Mean= 3.77, SD=0.99)

32 3.0 108 10.0 163 15.1 549 50.9 226 21.0

Question 12: People get ahead as fast

here as they do in other

places. (Mean= 3.03, SD=0.98)

55 5.1 290 26.9 345 32.0 345 32.0 43 4.0

Question 13: I am satisfied with my

chances for promotions.

(Mean= 3.33, SD=0.99)

44 4.1 201 18.6 256 23.7 504 46.8 73 6.8

Note: Note: Negative-worded questions were remained the same as in the quantitative study

in order to demonstrate the norms of the original questions. n=total respondents,

SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage, 1=disagree very much, 2=disagree,

3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=agree very much. # = Negatively worded question.

Respondents of the survey scored a moderate level of satisfaction with

promotion through Question 12: People get ahead as fast here as they do in other

places (Mean= 3.03, SD= 0.98). Their responses were mainly scattered between the

responses of disagree (f=290, %=26.9), neither disagree nor agree (f=345, %=32), and

agree (f=43, %=4.0). This is an interesting finding that showed differences of

opinions between those who think that it is easy to be promoted at their workplaces

and with those who think of the other way around. Almost half of the respondents

responded that they agreed with Question 13: I am satisfied with my chances for

promotions (f=504, %=46.8). However, the overall mean for the question reflected

that respondent scored a moderate level of satisfaction with promotion (mean= 3.33,

SD= 0.99).

169

Based on the findings presented in Table 5.10, a further analysis was

undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with promotion based on the

mean of these four questions. The result shows that respondents had a moderate level

of overall satisfaction with promotion (Mean= 3.34, SD=0.71). Hence, the findings of

the quantitative study supported the outcomes of the qualitative study that academics

had a moderate level of satisfaction with promotion.

The current study’s finding is not consistent with the findings of Oshagbemi

(1999) among university academics in the UK, Toker (2011) among academics in

Turkey, where they both found that their respondents have a very low satisfaction

with promotion. Furthermore, the finding opposes Akpofure et al.’s (2006) outcome

where academics in Nigeria were highly satisfied with promotion.

5.3.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Gender

Table 5.11 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with promotion among

academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant

difference in scores for male academics (M=3.38, SD=0.75) and female academics

[M=3.29, SD=0.67; t (1041)= 2.11, p= 0.035].


Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Promotion

3.38

0.75

3.29

0.67

8.11

0.005

1041

2.11

0.035**

Note: n=total respondents M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for



170

Thus, we can conclude that there is a statistical significant difference in

satisfaction with promotion by different gender among academics, where male

academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their female counterpart. This

finding yielded the same outcome as Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003) and Stevens

(2005) who found that women were less satisfied with their promotion prospects than

men.

5.3.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Age

Table 5.12 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with promotion

among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with promotion

among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=8.247, p<0.05].

Table 5.12: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion among

Academics by Age


Between Groups 16.92 4 4.229 8.247 0.000**


Total 481.05 909


Sig= significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05


promotion among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value

of satisfaction shown was by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40),

while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21,

SD=0.80).


were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40) and who were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.52,

SD=0.82) had significantly higher levels of promotion satisfaction than their younger

colleagues of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21, SD=0.80) and 26 to 35 years old (M=3.28,

SD=0.66). No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other

groups. Hence, it can be concluded that older academics were more satisfied in terms

of promotion as compared to the younger ones. The finding is conflicting with the

171

outcome of Akpofure et al.(2006) and Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among

university academics in Nigeria respectively, where they found that older academics

were less satisfied with promotion than the younger academics.

Table 5.13: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Age

Age Groups (Years)

n Mean SD 25 &

under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under 47 3.41 0.46 -

26-35 442 3.28 0.66 NS -

36-45 255 3.21 0.80 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.52 0.82 NS * * -

56 & over 24 3.88 0.40 NS * * NS -



5.3.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Tenure

Table 5.14 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with promotion

among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the four

different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=4.827, p=0.002].

Table 5.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion among

Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 7.604 3 2.535 4.827 0.002**


Total 479.13 901




promotion among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction was shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30

172

years (M=3.57, SD=0.86), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure

group of 10 years and under (M=3.27, SD=0.71).

Table 5.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Tenure

Tenure

(Years)

n Mean SD 10 &

under

11-20 21-30 31 &

over

10 & under 723 3.27 0.71 -

11-20 147 3.49 0.77 * -

21-30 29 3.57 0.86 NS NS -

31 & over 3 3.50 0.00 NS NS NS -





level of promotion satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under

(M=3.27, SD=0.71) No significant difference existed between academics in any of the

other groups of tenure. Thus, it can be concluded that senior academics were more

satisfied on the promotion opportunities than the juniors.

The current study’s finding is different with the findings of Ch’ng et al.‘s

(2010), where they found that there was no significant influence of tenure towards

promotion satisfaction in their study among academics in private college in Penang

State, Malaysia. This can be explained by the nature of academic environment in

Malaysia where promotion opportunities are rather limited and it heavily counts on

the seniority or tenure of academic staff (Ch’ng et al., 2010).

5.3.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Management

Position

Table 5.16 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with promotion among

academics by either holding management position or not. The t-test results indicated

that there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management

position (M=3.42, SD=0.76) and academics that do not hold any management

position [M=3.27, SD=0.69; t (927)= 3.35, p<0.05]. In regards with the qualitative

173

study’s findings, the quantitative study rectify the unclear differences of satisfaction

level towards promotion between both groups of academics.


Management Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold

any

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Promotion

3.27

0.69

3.42

0.76

10.39

0.01

927

3.35

0.001**




The current study supports the findings of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006)

among employees at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran, where they found that

employees without management position were less satisfied with promotion compared

to those in the management positions. Therefore, the conclusion is that, in the

Malaysian public higher educational setting, academics with management positions

were more satisfied in terms of promotion compared to academics without

management positions.

5.3.3 Summary of Key Findings on Promotion Satisfaction

All in all, based on the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in

the focus groups, promotion has not been clearly shown as either an indicator towards

academics’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction at workplace. Overall, most of the interview

respondents stated that they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with the aspect of

promotion. In another sense, a senior academic (KP3) and an associate professor

(KP8) raised their dissatisfactions with a more lenient promotion opportunity for

newer staff as compared to what the seniors like them needed to get through before

now.

174

Findings in the quantitative study showed that academics had a moderate

level of satisfaction with promotion. This finding is inconsistent with Oshagbemi’s

(1999) study among academics in the UK, Toker’s (2011) among academics in

Turkey, and Akpofure et al.’s (2006) study among academics in Nigeria. This may be

similar to the situation with pay satisfaction. Academics evaluate their situation

compared to others and it is this evaluation that seems to lead to either job satisfaction

or dissatisfaction.

Also, in regards to satisfaction with promotion, males were more satisfied

than females which yielded the same outcome as Crossman and Abou-Zaki’s (2003)

and Stevens’ (2005). The reality in the Malaysian context shows that statistically

males dominate most of the occupational sector including academics in public higher

education institutions (see Economic Planning Unit, 2007). It is not a surprise to find

that women will be less satisfied in terms of promotion in the Malaysian context,

since men are always viewed by the society as more capable of being a leader in any

team, department, or organization (Hassan and Hashim, 2011 and Mahmud, 2007).

In the context of age, it was found that older academics were more satisfied

than younger ones and this is conflicting with the outcome of Akpofure et al. (2006)

and Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) , where they found that older academics were less

satisfied with promotion than the younger academics. This is also different to the

findings of Ch’ng et al.’s (2010), where they found no significant influence of tenure

towards promotion satisfaction in their study among academics in a private college in

Penang State, Malaysia. What can be explained here is that these findings are based on

the fact that most of the Malaysian people regard a person to be more capable of being a

leader and deserving of promotion in their career when they become older and have a

longer tenure in the organisation. This can also be explained by the nature of academic

environment in Malaysia where promotion opportunities are rather limited and it

heavily relies on the seniority or tenure of academic staff (Ch’ng et al., 2010).

This is evidenced by the statement given by a dean of faculty (KP1) in the

qualitative study where one of her colleagues had worked hard to get promoted. But it

was pointed out that the university neglected this by implementing the seniority-based

system for promotion. She added that this affected very much on her colleague’s

motivation to work and his job satisfaction.

Furthermore, academics with management positions were more satisfied with

promotion compared to academics without management positions. This finding

175

supports the outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among

employees at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran. It is obvious that people who had

been promoted to a better position in the university feel that the university has

recognised their individual potentials and capabilities, hence they appreciated the

belief by the university of themselves and hence are satisfied in terms of promotion.

5.4 Supervision Satisfaction

5.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Supervision

Oshagbemi (1997) through his study on job satisfaction among academics in

UK higher education indicated that supervision is one of the key factors contributing

to academics job satisfaction. To determine whether or not the qualitative study’s

findings support Oshagbemi’s (1997) findings, a question had been asked in each of

the interview sessions held with all of the interview respondents, about their general

feelings of satisfaction with supervision. Table 5.17 depicts this data.

Table 5.17: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with supervision


Responses

Key-person


KP3 Satisfied

KP4 - KP5 Satisfied KP6 Satisfied KP7 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied KP8 Unclear/no response

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied FG1-2 Unclear/no response FG1-3 Dissatisfied FG1-4 Dissatisfied FG1-5 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied FG1-6 Dissatisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Satisfied FG2-2 Dissatisfied

FG2-3 Dissatisfied

176

According to the findings in Table 5.17, six interview respondents (KP1, KP2,

KP3, KP5, KP6 and FG2-1) mentioned that they are satisfied with the supervision

aspect. Interestingly, five focus group respondents (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and

FG2-3) said that they were dissatisfied with supervision. Only three had stated that

they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (KP7, FG1-1, and FG1-5), while the rest

had conveyed an unclear or no response at all towards the question. The interviews

findings show that satisfaction toward supervision came mostly from the management

people, while dissatisfaction came from the operational level academics. These

findings also show that academics were apt to assess supervision as an important

factor that contributed to their overall job satisfaction. Therefore, the qualitative

study’s finding supports Oshagbemi’s (1997) outcome that supervision is a pertinent

factor that influences academics’ job satisfaction.

5.4.1.1 Satisfied Respondents

Management people’s satisfactions were best represented by a University

Branch’s Provost (KP6) elaboration on why he was satisfied with the aspect of

supervision:

I am very honoured and pleased to be given the opportunity to be at this

position by the university’s authorities. I work very close with them to ensure

that they are aware with everything I do and I am able to deliver the best

service to everybody. They (his superiors) provided great guidance and

assistance for me... (KP6 - Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

There was only one respondent from the focus group interviews, who

responded as being satisfied towards supervision. The tutor (FG2-1) asserted that:

As a young and inexperienced academic, I had been guided precisely by the

dean and faculty’s head department on how to do my work. They were very

assertive not only towards my needs, but also towards other academic staff

members. (FG2-1, Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

177

5.4.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents

Five focus group respondents (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-3)

stated that they were dissatisfied with the supervision factor. Some issues that

instigated dissatisfaction among respondents were fairness and consideration practised

by management people, management strategy and leadership, and lack of

consultation, freedom and authority. These dissatisfactions are specifically elaborated

in the next section.

5.4.2 Qualitative study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with

Supervision

Table 5.18 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with supervision,

spoken of and discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the table,

each interviewee’s response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is

represented by ‘X’ symbol. These issues were categorised based on keywords and key

points of satisfaction with supervision.

178

Table 5.18: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with supervision in the qualitative study



Supervision KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Fairness & consideration

X X X

- Management strategy &

leadership X X X X X X X X

- Consultation & freedom

X X X X X X X X


179

5.4.2.1 Fairness and consideration

Based on interview respondents’ feedback on the supervision factor, the issue

of fairness and consideration practised by supervisor and management people was

deemed as a source of dissatisfaction. Three respondents (FG1-4, FG1-6 and FG2-3)

spoke of their dissatisfaction in this issue. Comments made by two tutors in Focus

Groups (FG1-6 and FG2-3) best represent this issue:

I want them (management people in his faculty) to delegate any works to

everybody fairly. The current practice is, they (dean and head of department)

simply direct male academics to do everything rather than involving females

too... or simply delegate academic tasks among juniors and tutors.... they

allow senior lecturers too enjoy a lot of time for leisure. It is not fair… I am

not happy (FG1-6 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

For the university and faculty management people… they should understand

the academic colleagues’ situation… don’t easily give instructions and force

us to do this and that without knowing our problems, our hesitations. Mingle

around with us, give good support, and guide us properly. Overall, the way my

superiors supervise me lead to my dissatisfaction (FG2-3 – Focus Group


It is interesting to note from the qualitative study, that only those who work in

the operational level initiated this issue and they seemed to be dissatisfied. No similar

arguments were spoken of by those academics in management level.

5.4.2.2 Management strategy and leadership

A former Minister of Higher Education (KP4) believed that academics’

satisfaction is derived from a proper management and leadership style in the

university. This was clearly expressed by him:

In a university setting, leadership and supervision are really important in order

to enhance academic staff’s satisfaction. For instance, a leader who gives

optimum recognition and trust to his or her academic staff in doing their job

180

will increase their job satisfaction and at the same time construct a good

relationship between both parties (KP4 – Key-person Interview, 28 October

2007).

The former Minister’s view is shared by the dean of a faculty (KP1). She further

argued that:

A leader’s behaviour has a great impact towards academics’ job satisfaction.

As a leader, we need to be transparent, share all information we have with our

staff except on confidential things, and pull out any barriers between us and

our staff. Be in their shoes to understand their needs and what they could

contribute to us... When we are very open to them, they will be comfortable

enough to talk and share their views, their problems with us (KP1 – Key-

person Interview, 23 October 2007).

In accordance to the views and suggestions of KP1 and KP4, showing good leadership

values will get them the full respect and support of the staff. However, a bad leader

will lead to dissatisfaction. Pertaining to this situation, a lecturer (FG1-2) asserted that

she is dissatisfied with the management strategy and leadership when she stated:

The most dominant factor contribute to dissatisfaction is management people

and their strategies. If the management people cannot administer and lead us

efficiently, it will contribute to our dissatisfaction (FG1-2 – Focus Group


Her view was supported by the other lecturers (FG1-1 and FG1-3) in the same focus

group interview. For instance FG1-3 argued:

I am dissatisfied with the lack of convenient spaces given by the management

for academics to be involved in any decision making…this is not a good style

of leadership (FG1-3 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

A lecturer in the other focus group interview (FG2-2) also expressed his

dissatisfaction with improper management leadership. He added that:

Some people up there, when they manage others, they easily direct people to

work and create a top to bottom communication. So, when a problem

occurred, this person will not know any problems happening to his

181

subordinates…and he will easily blame them (FG2-2 – Focus Group


However, a young tutor (FG2-1) conveyed his satisfaction with his management when

he said:

To this extent, I am satisfied with my upper management people. This is

because my responsibilities assigned by the university encompass only

teaching and student activities. The university management never forced me to

do any additional works without my consent. I am really comfortable (FG2-1

– Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

5.4.2.3 Consultation and freedom

This issue had been spoken of with different emotions evident between key-

person interview respondents and focus group respondents. Academics in the

university management group asserted that they were satisfied with the freedom and

authority they have. For instance, a university branch’s Director (KP6) said that he is

satisfied with the trust and freedom given by the university authorities to him to

manage his university campus branch. This is clearly expressed by him:

As far as I am concerned, as a campus director I got a full authority to justify

our campus’ vision and mission, programs objectives and other aspects…I

need to manage my lecturers, administrative staff, supportive staff, students

and other associated people. I am really satisfied because I have freedom to

manage the campus in my own way, using my own creativity (KP6 – Key-

person Interview, 1 November 2007).

A dean of a faculty (KP1) believed that freedom and authority are not only needed by

the management people but also desired by all academic staff:

Freedom given by the university is other factor that contributes to academics’

job satisfaction. For instance, lecturers desired the freedom of selecting places

to lecture and the use of complete aids and tools to teach (KP1 – Key-person


182

The dean’s view that academics need freedom and authority to do their work is

supported by a tutor (FG2-3). She clarified that:

As the academic staff we want to have freedom in doing our job… (for

example) freedom for doing our research, enough time and space to do library

research, flexible working hour, and the way we handle our lectures and

tutorials (FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

Nevertheless, the dean (KP1) further argued that freedom for academic staff has a

limit since the university must implement its rules and regulations to sustain a

productive teaching and learning process. She condemned some lecturers who

misused the freedom given by the university:

However, not all lecturers can discipline themselves…they can’t control

themselves. They misused the freedom (given by the university). Coming to

work late, cancelling classes without appropriate reasons…an organisation has

its own rules and regulations, and because of this some lecturers felt unhappy.

They felt they don’t have enough freedom. For example the university

exercised the system of punch in-punch out in staff attendance, and academics

thought that the university totally scrutinising them. They are wrong … (KP1

– Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).

On the contrary, lecturers and tutors who do not hold management positions in

the university were dissatisfied on this issue (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-

3). They believed that academic staff members have no say on any issues and

management does not involve them in any of the university’s decision making

process. For instance, this view is clearly spoken out by a tutor (FG2-3):

Sometimes we don’t know our rights. When a decision has made we didn’t

know whether we could ignore or need to follow that particular decision.

Everything is ambiguous. We have no authority to say anything. Then, what

we like to do and we want to do is not supported by the management, but we

are urged to follow what others like to do (FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25

October 2007).

183

A comment from the other focus group interview respondent (FG2-1) supports

FG2-3’s view:

…especially for young lecturers or tutors where their ideas and opinions

always being rejected or in some condition they will be blamed because of

their so called poor opinion (FG2-1 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October

2007).

Likewise, another tutor (FG1-6) emotionally elaborated on this issue:

… Well, they (management people) always asked us to do things that we do

not really like to do. It is not that we do not want to do those work… but to

force people to come to the office in the weekend…huh! It is not right! They

need to discuss with us first…get our responses. We are human, not robots.

They can direct robots to do this and that, but not us… (FG1-6, Focus Group


A lecturer (FG2-2) in the other focus group interview also mentioned his

dissatisfaction with lack of authority and freedom when he elaborated:

I really hope that university will not control us or treat us like kids. Do not

restrict us with any obstacles that are not supposed to be there… All in all, I

think that insufficient authority and freedom are among the major contributors

towards my job dissatisfaction (FG2-2 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October

2007).

Hence, in these universities the lack of freedom seems to be leading to many

instances of job dissatisfaction among academics in the operational level.


groups, it was clear that supervision was generally perceived as an influential factor

with significant implications on academics’ job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Apart from the general satisfactions and dissatisfaction findings, the study also

showed that there were three different issues being spoken of by respondents which

were perceived as important measures on academics’ satisfaction with supervision.

These issues were fairness and consideration, management strategy and leadership,

and consultation, freedom and authority.

184

Overall satisfaction and each of supervision sub-issues differed based on

different categories of demographic backgrounds among interview respondents,

especially between management people and academics in the operational level. These

were interesting and therefore had initiated two research questions to be answered

through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with supervision?

2. Are there any differences in supervision satisfaction among academics by



5.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Supervision Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with supervision

in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Supervision Satisfaction’ adapted from

Spector’s (1997) JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate

academics’ satisfaction with supervision. Four items included in this measure are

identical with key issues in the findings of interviews with key-person and focus

groups in the qualitative study.

5.4.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Supervision

The results of each question used in the measure are depicted in Table 5.19.

All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 15 and 16) were reverse-

coded. According to the findings of Question 14: My supervisor is competent in doing

his/her job, more than half of the total respondents responded that they agree and

agree very much with the question (f= 719, %=66.7). However, based on the mean

value for the question, the respondents were moderately satisfied with supervision

aspect (Mean= 3.61, SD= 0.92).

Question 15: My supervisor is unfair to me, is a negatively worded question.

After the scores were reverse-coded, the findings showed that more than half of the

total respondents answered disagree and disagree very much (f= 680, %= 60.3). It

reflected a reasonably high level of disagreement among respondents on the statement

of the question where they thought that their supervisors are fair to them, even though

185

overall mean score towards supervision satisfaction through this question

(Mean=3.61, SD=0.92).

Table 5.19: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Supervision

Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 14: My supervisor is

competent in doing

his/her job. (Mean= 3.61, SD=0.92)

25 2.3 128 11.9 206 19.1 599 55.6 120 11.1

Question 15# : My supervisor is unfair

to me. (Mean= 3.50, SD=1.08)

52 4.8 173 16.0 203 18.8 483 44.8 167 15.5

Question 16# : My supervisor shows

too little interest in the

feelings of subordinates. (Mean= 3.33, SD=1.12)

62 5.8 222 20.6 238 22.1 407 37.8 149 13.8

Question 17: I like my supervisor.

(Mean= 3.66, SD=0.88)

26 2.4 81 7.5 266 24.7 564 52.3 141 13.1



n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,

1=disagree very much, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree,

5=agree very much. # = Negatively worded question.

More than half of the respondents answered that they disagree and disagree

very much with Question 16 (f= 8, %= 51.6). From the findings, respondents seemed

to agree that the supervisors show their interests in the feelings of subordinates.

A total of 705 respondents (65.4%) answered that they agree and agree very much

with Question 17. Furthermore, evidenced by the mean score of 3.66 (SD=1.12),

which very nearly reached high level of satisfaction among respondents, they reflect a

fairly high level of satisfaction supervision.

In accordance to the findings in Table 5.19, a further analysis was undertaken

to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with supervision based on the

186

cumulative score of mean for the four questions measuring supervision satisfaction.

The result shows that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with

supervision (Mean=3.53, SD=0.79). The finding supports the findings of Oshagbemi

(1999) and Koustelios (2001) who found that their respondents- university academics

in the UK and teachers in Greek respectively- had a moderate level of satisfaction

with supervision.

Subsequently, the findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of

the qualitative study that supervision was perceived by some academics as an

important antecedent towards satisfaction and dissatisfaction for some others. This

also reiterates the works of Ghazi et al. (2010), Hassan and Hashim (2011), Noordin

and Jusoff (2009), and Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where they found that

supervision is one of the key antecedents of job satisfaction among salespersons.

Consequently, based on the above findings of the current study and its

comparison made with past research, it is vital to investigate whether or not there are

any differences of satisfaction based on different type of demographic backgrounds.

5.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Gender

Table 5.20 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with supervision among

academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant


[M=3.50, SD=0.77; t (1041)= 0.86, p= 0.39]. Hence, there is no significant difference

found between male and female academics. The finding opposes the finding of

Okpara et al. (2005) where men are more satisfied with supervision than their female

counterparts.

187


Gender

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Supervision 3.55 0.81 3.50 0.77 5.45 0.02 1041 0.86 0.39




5.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Age

Table 5.21 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with supervision


statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with supervision


Table 5.21: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision among

Academics by Age


Between Groups 6.10 4 1.52 2.42 0.05**


Total 575.73 909




supervision among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction shown by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40),

while the lowest mean scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21, SD=0.80).

However, based on the post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test, academics in the

188

age group of 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40) had a significantly higher level of

satisfaction with supervision than those in the group of 46 to 55 years old (M=3.63,

SD= 0.90).

Table 5.22: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Age

Age Groups n Mean SD 25 &

under

26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over

25 & under 47 3.52 0.74 -

26-35 442 3.53 0.71 NS -

36-45 255 3.21 0.80 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.63 0.90 NS NS NS -

56 & over 24 3.88 0.40 NS NS NS * -



The finding is dissimilar with the one of Okpara et al. (2005), where they

found that older academics in the United States colleges and universities have a

significant lower level of satisfaction with supervision than the younger academic

groups.

5.4.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Tenure

Table 5.23 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with supervision



different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.326, p=0.019]. This finding supports the

outcomes of Saygi et al. (2011) and Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar and Lotfi-Goodarzi (2012)

where they found that there was a significant difference of level in satisfaction with

supervision among different tenure subgroups.

189

Table 5.23: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision among

Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 6.41 3 2.14 3.326 0.019**


Total 583.18 901




supervision among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30 years

(M=3.97, SD=0.93), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure group

of 10 years and under (M=3.51, SD=0.78).

Table 5.24: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Tenure

Tenure n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 3.51 0.78 -

11-20 147 3.56 0.89 NS -

21-30 29 3.97 0.73 * * -

31 & over 3 4.00 0.00 NS NS NS -





level of supervision satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under

(M=3.51, SD=0.78) and group of 11 to 20 years (M=3.56, SD=0.89). No significant

difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of tenure. Therefore,

it can be concluded that senior academics are more satisfied with supervision than

juniors. Since there is no similar past research that has specifically investigated this,

hence, the current study’s finding is a significant contribution in regards to the effort

of investigating the differences of satisfaction with supervision among different tenure

subgroups especially among academics.

190

5.4.3.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by

Management Position

Table 5.25 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with supervision among

academics by either holding management position or not.


Management Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold

any

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Supervision 3.59 0.74 3.40 0.83 1.58 0.21 927 1.77 0.076

Note: n=total respondents M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for


The t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for


do not hold any management position [M=3.27, SD=0.69; t (927)= 3.35, p<0.05].

Therefore, it can be concluded that respondents whether they are in the management

position or in the academic position have no significant difference in their satisfaction

with the element of supervision.

In addition, the findings fails to reiterate the findings of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) where they found significant differences between ordinary

workers and management people in terms of satisfaction with supervision.

Furthermore, in their study, employees scored higher mean of satisfaction towards

supervision compared to their first line managers.

191

5.4.4 Summary of Key Findings on Supervision Satisfaction

As a conclusion, some of the respondents in the qualitative study were

satisfied with supervision. They were mostly academics from the management level.

However, there were also some respondents who were dissatisfied with the aspect of

supervision and they were mostly academics from the operational level. There were

three key issues related to satisfaction with supervision raised by the interview

respondents which were fairness and consideration, management strategy and

leadership, and lack of consultation, freedom and authority.

Based on the quantitative study findings, respondents showed that they had a

moderate level of satisfaction with supervision. The finding supports the outcomes of

Oshagbemi (1999) and Koustelios (2001) who found that their respondents had a

moderate level of satisfaction with supervision. Evidenced from the finding in the

current study with the past studies, it can be proposed that satisfaction with

supervision is not necessarily influenced by the cultural context of a country. But

rather it is dependent on the immediate supervisor or manager’s leadership,

management and supervisory traits that influence the level of satisfaction among the

academic staff members. Evidenced by several arguments in the interviews with

focus-group members, academics perceived that satisfaction is directly related to the

individual leader’s ability to show optimum recognition, trust and fair judgment to his

academic staff.

More specifically, pertaining to satisfaction with supervision, older academics

were more satisfied than younger academics. The finding is dissimilar with the one of

Okpara et al. (2005) among academics in the United States colleges and universities.

Next, it is found that seniors were more satisfied than juniors based on their tenure in

the university. The finding reflects the fact that as they become older and have a

longer tenure in the university, academics tend to become more lenient in their

reviews towards the supervision shown by their superiors or managers. Compared to

their older counterparts, young academics tend to be rebellious and defined

supervision of their managers as an effort to scrutinise their work and restrict the

freedom of doing their job based on their capabilities and creativity. This is obvious

through the comment made by a member in focus-group interview (FG2-1) when he

thought that one’s idea will be easily rejected because of his/her status as a young

lecturer in the faculty.

192

Since there is no similar past research has specifically investigated about this,

hence, the current study’s finding is a significant contribution in regards to the effort

of investigating the differences of satisfaction with supervision among different tenure

subgroups especially among academics in Malaysian public higher education

institutions.

Consequently, there was no significant difference of satisfaction between

males and females, and this differs from the finding of Okpara et al. (2005) among

university teachers in the United States of America, where men are more satisfied

with supervision than their female counterparts. Also, there is no significant

difference of satisfaction with supervision between academics with and without

management position. This finding fails to reiterate the findings of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) among employees in Iran. The findings in the qualitative

study shown a pattern of the greater dissatisfaction among female academics and

those without management position, however based on a bigger scale of respondents

in the quantitative study, the pattern changed to be no differences of satisfaction

supervision based on these two demographic factors.

All in all, the findings in the current study restate the outcomes of Ghazi et al.

(2010), Hassan and Hashim (2011), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006), where they found that supervision is one of the key

antecedents of job satisfaction among employees.

5.5 Fringe Benefits Satisfaction

5.5.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits


university academics’ satisfaction is fringe benefits. Oshagbemi (1997) and Spector

(1997:8) assert that one of the main determiners of job satisfaction across different

occupations is fringe benefits. As argued by Artz (2010:627) fringe benefits can act as

valuable substitutes for wages and employers may choose to offer fringe benefits

since workers can have strong preferences for fringe benefits. Moreover, this may

193

decrease the prevalence of turnover as effectively as an equivalently valuable increase

in wages.

Table 5.26: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with Fringe Benefits


Responses

Key-person




KP4 -

KP5 Satisfied

KP6 Unclear/no response


KP8 Satisfied

Focus Group 1

FG1-1 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied FG1-2 Satisfied FG1-3 Satisfied FG1-4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

FG1-5 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

FG1-6 Satisfied

Focus Group 2

FG2-1 Satisfied



In each of interview sessions held with the interview respondents, a question

had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with fringe benefits. Table

5.26 presents this data.

According to the findings in Table 5.26, six interview respondents (KP5, KP8,

FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-6, and FG2-1) mentioned that they are satisfied with the aspect of

fringe benefits. Eight respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (KP1, KP2,

KP3, FG1-1, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-2, and FG2-3). Two key-persons had conveyed an

unclear or no response towards the question (KP6 and KP7).

This findings show that academics were mostly had a moderate level of

satisfaction with fringe benefits. However, some of them were satisfied with fringe

benefits. Interestingly, no respondents said that they were dissatisfied with fringe

benefits.

194

As assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in Chapter 2

and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents, it was clearly

shown that academics considered fringe benefits as an influential factor that

contributed to their job satisfaction.

5.5.1.1 Qualitative study Findings: Satisfied Respondents

In the key-person and focus group interviews, six interview respondents (KP5,

KP8, FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-6, and FG2-1) mentioned that they were satisfied and happy

with the fringe benefits provided by their universities respectively. The best

explanation of the satisfaction among those satisfied respondents was given by a head

of department (KP5). She believed that fringe benefits are a strong factor that

contributed to academic’s job satisfaction:

…Annual bonus, annual leave, emergency leave, sufficient research funds,

special parking space, hospital benefits...what a great package! I am really

proud to serve the government (the university particularly). It is hard to find

this kind of perks in private organisation (KP5 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

5.5.1.2 Qualitative study Findings: Moderately Satisfied Respondents

As evidence in the interview findings most of the respondents stated that they

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with fringe benefits. These reflect the fact that

they were moderately satisfied with the particular factor. Furthermore, the responses

came from both the group of academics in the management level and academics in the

operational level.

A Department Director (KP3) asserted that:

I am happy with the package of fringe benefits and rewards provided by the

government through the university. Yet, this is still not comparable to the

package offered by private institutions...they (academics in the private

universities) got a far, far better benefits (KP3 - Key-person Interview, 26

October 2007).

195

The head of department’s arguments highlighted some concerns among those

moderately satisfied respondents that even though they were happy with the present

fringe benefits package, but they were still craving for a better one. Her arguments

were also related to the equity issues between public and private universities, where

academics in private universities seemed to have a better fringe benefits package

compared to academics in public universities.

According to the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in

focus groups, it can be assumed that they were generally had a moderate level of

satisfaction with fringe benefits.

There were no obvious differences of overall satisfaction with fringe benefits

among different categories of academics’ demographic backgrounds. In that sense, it

is essential for the current study to make a further investigation whether there are

differences of satisfaction level among a bigger scale of respondents.

Hence, findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with

fringe benefits among academics in higher education had initiated two research

questions to be answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of

respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with fringe benefits?

2. Are there any differences in fringe benefits satisfaction among academics

by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in

current university, and holding a management position or not?

5.5.2 Quantitative study Findings on Fringe Benefits Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with fringe

benefits in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Fringe Benefits Satisfaction’ was used

in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction with fringe

benefits. The scale adapted Spector’s (1997) fringe benefits questionnaire in Job

Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Four items included in this measure were suitable to reflect

key findings in interviews with key informants and focus groups in the qualitative

study.

196

5.5.2.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits

Table 5.27 below presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for

each of the four questions on fringe benefits satisfaction responded by survey

respondents. All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 18 and 21)

were reverse-coded.

Table 5.27: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Fringe

Benefits Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 18# : I am not satisfied with

the benefits I receive. (Mean= 3.11, SD=1.05)

58 5.4 313 29.0 210 19.5 444 41.2 53 4.9

Question 19: The benefits we receive

are as good as most

other organisations

offer. (Mean= 3.19, SD=0.98)

47 4.4 248 23.0 275 25.5 468 43.4 40 3.7

Question 20: The benefit package we

have is equitable. (Mean= 3.36, SD=0.89)

25 2.3 183 17.0 294 27.3 529 49.1 47 4.4

Question 21# : There are benefits we

do not have which we

should have. (Mean= 2.68, SD=1.03)

121 11.2 399 37.0 291 27.0 233 21.6 34 3.2


to demonstrate the norms of the original questions.n=total respondents, SD=standard

deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,



Respondents showed that they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits

through their responses on Question 18 (Mean= 3.11, SD=1.05). It is worth pondering

that there was a high number of respondents who were specifically satisfied with the

fringe benefits they received by answering disagree with the question (f=444, %=

41.2). Conversely, there were also a lot of respondents who were dissatisfied and

answered agree (f=313, %=29).

197

Based on the results of Question 19, respondents mostly agreed (f=468,

%=43.4) that they receive a good package of fringe benefits as compared to what the

other organisations offer to their employees. However, based on the mean score,

respondents were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits through the question

(Mean= 3.19, SD=0.98). This finding is associated with the issue of equity, where

some academics compare their fringe benefits package, to what people in other

organisations obtained (Artz, 2010).

For Question 20, respondents scored a mean value of 3.36 which shows that

they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits by answering the question.

However, it was interestingly found that half of the respondents answered that they

agree (f= 529, %= 49.1) and agree very much (f= 47, %= 4.4) that the benefit package

they have is equitable.

According to the findings of Question 21, almost half of the respondents

mostly agreed and agreed very much that there are benefits they do not have which

they should have (f=520, %=48.2). With mean value of 2.68 (SD= 1.03), respondents

reflected that they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits through their

answers on this particular question. This seemed to be the lowest mean value

compared to other questions in measuring fringe benefits satisfaction. This might be

derived from most of the respondents’ dissatisfaction with benefits that they should

have as compared to what academics in other universities obtained.

As evidenced in the interview with KP3 (see section 5.5.1.2), she asserted that

some academics kept comparing the benefits provided by their universities

respectively with the benefits package offered by other educational institutions,

especially the private universities. This is because they believed they actually

deserved the same fringe benefits package where the universities were actually have

the capability of providing it.


to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with fringe benefits. The result shows

that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with fringe benefits (Mean=

3.09, SD=0.74). The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the

qualitative study and the outcome of Artz‘s (2010) study where fringe benefits was an

important antecedent of job satisfaction.

198

5.5.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Gender

Table 5.28: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by

Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig.

(2-

tailed) Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Fringe

Benefits 3.11 0.76 3.06 0.72 0.61 0.44 1041 0.97 0.33




Table 5.28 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with fringe benefits among

academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant


[M=3.06, SD=0.72; t (1041)= 0.97, p= 0.33].

5.5.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age

Table 5.29 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with fringe

benefits among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with fringe

benefits among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=5.134, p<0.05].




Between Groups 11.53 4 2.88 5.134 0.00**


Total 519.43 909



199


fringe benefits among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction shown by group of age between 46-55 years old (M=3.19,

SD=0.80), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=2.93,

SD=0.82). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics

between 46 to 55 years old have significantly higher mean levels of satisfaction

compared to those aged between 36 to 45 years old and 26 to 35 years old. No

significant difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.

Table 5.30: Post-Hoc Analysis for Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age


under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under 47 3.37 0.43 -

26-35 442 3.07 0.72 NS -

36-45 255 2.93 0.82 * NS -

46-55 142 3.19 0.80 NS NS * -

56 & over 24 3.00 0.74 NS NS NS NS -




Tenure

Table 5.31 shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with fringe benefits

among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no


different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=1.301, p=0.27]. The finding is dissimilar with the

outcome of Sarker et al. (2003) who found significant differences among tenure

groups of hotel employees in Thailand.

200


among Academics by Tenure Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 2.25 3 0.75 1.301 0.27


Total 520.54 901




Management Position

Table 5.32 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with fringe benefits among

academics whether they hold management position or not. The t-test results indicated

that there was no significant difference in scores for academics that hold a

management position (M=3.05, SD=0.75) and academics that do not hold any

management position [M=3.07, SD=0.76; t (927)= 0.13, p=0.90].

Therefore, no differences were found in satisfaction with the fringe benefits

among academics with a management position and without a management position.

The current study’s outcome was dissimilar with the one found by Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) where employees were significantly less satisfied with

fringe benefits as compared to their manager counterparts.

Table 5.32: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by

Management Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold

any

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Fringe

Benefits 3.07 0.76 3.05 0.75 0.85 0.36 927 0.13 0.90




201

5.5.3 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits

As a summary, most of the respondents in the qualitative study responded that

they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with fringe benefits. No other specific

issues on fringe benefits satisfaction were raised by respondents in the interviews.

Respondents in the quantitative study showed a moderate level of satisfaction

with fringe benefits. The findings related to the academics’ overall satisfaction with

fringe benefits in the quantitative study support the outcomes of the qualitative study

and the outcome of Artz’s (2010) study where fringe benefits was an important

antecedent of job satisfaction. Furthermore, one of the possible causes of why the

satisfaction with fringe benefits is not high, might be derived from most of the

respondents’ dissatisfaction with benefits that they should have as compared to what

academics in other universities obtained. As evidenced in the interview with a key-

person (KP3), she asserted that some academics kept comparing the benefits provided

by their universities respectively with the benefits package offered by other

educational institutions, especially the private universities. This is because they

believed they actually deserved the same fringe benefits package where the

universities have the capability of providing it.

Older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger ones with

fringe benefits. This can be expected since older academics will mostly be those that

gain the fringe benefits given by the university to its academics staff members. Some

key-persons in the qualitative interview had shared their high satisfaction with fringe

benefits and admitted that most of the older academics were satisfied because most of

them hold a management position in their university respectively. Therefore, these

people enjoyed a lot of fringe benefits such as they have their own special car parks at

the office, a personal assistant, greater access to university’s facilities, and a phone

line that billed into the university account.

There was no significant difference in any other demographic backgrounds

among the respondents. Findings in the current study specifically to demographic

differences were contradicted to several past studies (see Crossman & Abou-Zaki,

2005; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006; Sarker et al., 2003).

202

5.6 Contingent Rewards Satisfaction

5.6.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Contingent

Rewards

According to Spector (1997) the next organisational factor that serves as one

of the antecedents of university academics satisfaction is contingent rewards.

Satisfaction with contingent rewards described by Spector’s (1997) as ‘satisfaction

with rewards- not necessarily monetary- given for good performances.

In each interview session held with the entire interview respondents, a

question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with the

contingent rewards. Table 5.33 presents this data.

Table 5.33: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with Contingent Rewards


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied



KP4 -





Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied






Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Dissatisfied FG2-2 Dissatisfied FG2-3 Dissatisfied

According to the findings in Table 5.33, majority of respondents from both

Key-person and Focus Group interviews (KP1, KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, FG1-1,

FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-5, and FG1-6) had responded that they were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied with contingent rewards. Three respondents in Focus Group

203

2 interviews (FG2-1, FG2-2, and FG2-3) had expressed their dissatisfaction with

contingent rewards, while KP8 had given an unclear response.

5.6.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issue on Recognitions

Apart from their general satisfaction with contingent rewards, the interview

respondents also initiated discussions on a specific issue that impacted on their

satisfaction with contingent rewards, which was recognition.

In regards to this issue, two tutors (FG2-1 and FG2-3) expressed their

dissatisfaction with what they saw as ‘double standard recognitions’ from the

management people towards different level of academic posts. Dissatisfaction as

expressed by those two tutors might come from the reality that a tutor is the lowest

rank for an academic in their university. Hence, they got less recognition and

contingent rewards compared to the other lecturers, senior lecturers, and professors.

This is also associated with the issue of equity, where in this sense, academics in

lower ranks have been ignored by the university management compared to people in

the higher ranks. Pertaining to this, a tutor (FG2-3) elaborated:

Besides teaching when we do other tasks, we don’t get enough appreciation or

recognition… you see, when we (academics) do our job well, those people

(the university management) don’t appreciate and don’t recognise our good

achievement. Instead of appreciation, those people (the university

management) always force us to perform better and better. It is a huge

pressure and makes us feel like finding other place to work… (we) just (need

to) leave this university if they keep treating us like this. (FG2-3 – Focus

Group Interview, 25 October 2007).


groups, it was clear that contingent rewards was generally perceived as an influential

factor and with significant implications that lead to academics’ job satisfaction. The

study showed that there was generally a moderate level of satisfaction being argued of

by respondents in regards to contingent rewards.

However, the fact that some of the respondents among those who were in the

operational level had expressed their dissatisfaction with contingent rewards this is

another key finding that cannot be overlooked in the qualitative study. These were

204

interesting and therefore, regarded by the study as an important dimension to be

included in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection – the quantitative

study.

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with contingent

rewards among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to

be answered through the quantitative study among a larger sample of respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with contingent rewards?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with contingent rewards among

academics by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age,

tenure in current university, and holding a management position or not?

5.6.3 Quantitative study Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with contingent

rewards in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Contingent Rewards Satisfaction’ was

used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction with the

specified antecedent. Four items included in this measure were adapted from JSS’s

questions which measure contingent rewards satisfaction. These four items are

identical with general satisfaction and key issues raised in the findings of interviews

with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study.

5.6.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards

The results of each questions used in the measure were depicted in Table 5.34.

All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 23, Question 24, and

Question 25) were reverse-coded.

Based on Question 22, there were 664 respondents (61.6%) who agree and

agree very much that they receive the recognition that they should get when they do a

good job. Most of them also feel that the work they do is appreciated through their

responses in Question 23.

However, responses for Question 24 were distributed nearly equal between

those who agree and agree very much (f=398, 36.9%) and those who disagree and

205

disagree very much (f=429, %=39.8). Some academics might feel that they received

few rewards while others think conversely.

Table 5.34: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Contingent

Rewards Satisfaction (N=1078)

Responses

(n=1078) Question

1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 22: When I do a good job, I

receive the recognition

for it that I should

receive. (Mean= 3.50, SD=0.89)

27 2.5 142 13.2 245 22.7 597 55.4 67 6.2

Question 23# : I do not feel that the

work I do is

appreciated. (Mean= 3.13,

SD=1.01)

51 4.7 287 26.6 256 23.7 439 40.7 45 4.2

Question 24# : There are few rewards

for those who work

here. (Mean= 3.04, SD=1.00)

36 3.3 362 33.6 251 23.3 384 35.6 45 4.2

Question 25# : I don’t feel my efforts

are rewarded the way

they should be. (Mean= 3.11, SD=1.04)

52 4.8 298 27.6 285 26.4 370 34.3 73 6.8



n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,




to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with contingent rewards. The result

shows that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with contingent rewards

(Mean= 3.19, SD=0.78). The findings of the quantitative study supported the

outcomes of the qualitative study that contingent rewards was an important antecedent

of satisfaction among academics. It is vital to investigate whether or not there are any

differences of satisfaction based on different type of demographic backgrounds.

206


Gender

Table 5.35 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with contingent rewards

among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant

difference in scores for male academics (Mean=3.28, SD=0.82) and female academics

[Mean=3.09, SD=0.73; t (1041)= 3.99, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that there is a

statistical significant difference in satisfaction with contingent rewards by different

gender among academics, where male academics scored a higher mean score than

their female counterpart. This does not mean that females get fewer rewards than

males, because there is no different policy on giving rewards based on gender

differences in Malaysian public universities (See Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2010). Female academics may think that they

should get more than what they get without comparing with what are obtained by

male academics.


Academics by Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of means

Sig.

(2-

tailed) Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Contingent

Rewards

3.28 0.82 3.09 0.73 11.27 0.001 1041 3.99 0.00**

Note: n=total respondents, M=mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for



5.6.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among Academics by Age

Table 5.36 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with contingent

rewards among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with contingent

rewards among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=6.09, p<0.05].

207

Table 5.36: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards

among Academics by Age Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 15.05 4 3.76 6.09 0.00**


Total 573.99 909




contingent rewards among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction shown by group of age 56 years old and over (M=3.54,

SD=0.74), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old (M=3.12,

SD=0.76) and 36 to 45 years old (M=3.12, SD=0.87).

Table 5.37: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by Age


under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under 47 3.22 0.62 -

26-35 442 3.12 0.76 NS -

36-45 255 3.12 0.87 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.43 0.78 NS * * -

56 & over 24 3.54 0.74 NS NS NS NS -



Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics of 56

years old and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to

those aged between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant

difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age. The finding

reflected the argument of Oshagbemi (1999) that older workers are more satisfied

than their younger counterparts because they actually have “better” or more

recognition by the organisation.

208


Tenure

Table 5.38 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with contingent

rewards among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there

was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the

four different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.77, p<0.05].

Table 5.38: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards


Between Groups 7.11 3 2.37 3.77 0.01**


Total 571.78 901




contingent rewards among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30

years (M=3.36, SD=0.70), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure

group of 31 years and over (M=2.75, SD=0.71).

Table 5.39: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by Tenure Tenure n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 3.15 0.79 -

11-20 147 3.34 0.83 * -

21-30 29 3.36 0.70 NS NS -

31 & over 3 2.75 0.00 NS NS NS -





level of contingent rewards satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and

under (M=3.15, SD=0.79). No significant difference existed between academics in

any of the other groups of tenure. In the case of tenure group of 31 and over, although

209

they scored the lowest mean among the other groups (M=2.75, SD=0), note that this

tenure category has no significant difference with other tenure groups as depicted in

5.39, hence the category of 31 and over was excluded in the comparison between

mean score.

As elaborated by Oshagbemi (1999b), the current study explains that seniors

are more satisfied not only because they tend to be better rewarded and praised by the

organisation or superiors, but also because they expect less or because they care less

about rewards from their jobs.


Management Position

Table 5.40 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with contingent rewards

among academics by whether they hold a management position or not. T-test results

indicated that there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a

management position (M=3.11, SD=0.78) and academics that do not hold any

management position [M=3.30, SD=0.79; t (927)= 3.65, p<0.05].



Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold

any

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Contingent

Rewards 3.30 0.79 3.11 0.78 0.875 0.35 927 3.65 0.000**




Thus, the conclusion is that academics without any management positions

were more satisfied in terms of contingent rewards compared to academics with

management positions. This finding opposes the finding of Rad and

210

Yarmohammadian (2006) where they found that employees have a lower level of

satisfaction with contingent rewards than their manager counterparts. This is because

the management people probably get more due to extra allowance paid to those in

management positions (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006).

5.6.4 Summary of Key Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction

All in all, most of the respondents in the qualitative study mentioned that they

were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with contingent rewards factor. This similar

response was shared almost equally between those in the management level and those

in the operational level. An issue of double standard recognitions has been raised by a

couple of tutors which highlighted a concern on equity.

Respondents in the quantitative study reported a moderate level of satisfaction

with contingent rewards. Furthermore, in regards to contingent rewards satisfaction by

demographic differences, findings showed that males were more satisfied than

females. This does not mean that females get fewer rewards than males, because there

is no different policy on giving rewards based on gender differences in Malaysian

public universities (See Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and Ministry of Higher

Education Malaysia, 2010). Female academics may think that they should get more

than what they get without comparing with that obtained by male academics.

Next, older academics were more satisfied than younger ones. The finding

reflected the argument of Oshagbemi (1999b) that older workers are more satisfied

than their younger counterparts because they actually have “better” or more praises by

the organisation. Then, senior academics were found to be more satisfied than juniors.

This was so, which in accordance to the elaboration by Oshagbemi (1999b), where

‘seniors are more satisfied not only because they tend to be better rewarded and

praised by the organisation or superiors, but also because they expect less or because

they care less about rewards from their jobs’ (p401).


those with management position, and this contradicts the finding of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees at university hospitals in

Iran. The current study’s finding seems to be problematic where as compared to Rad

and Yarmohammadian (2006), those who hold a management position we would

presume should be more satisfied with the contingent rewards since being provided

211

with the opportunity to hold a position is a form of trust and recognition given by the

university. The current study’s finding might reflect that in a big scale of respondents

in the quantitative study, academics in Malaysian public universities generally viewed

that they had been given ample recognitions by the university.

5.7 Conclusion

This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with key-person and focus

groups in regard to satisfaction of all nine organisational antecedents, which were pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating condition, co-

workers, nature of work, and communication. Secondly, the findings of the qualitative

study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study pertaining to

satisfaction of academics towards all organisational antecedents.

Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the

interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction with several of the

organisational antecedents. In each key issue discussed by the interview respondents,

some lead to satisfaction and some dissatisfaction.


there were differences of responses of each of the organisational antecedents by

respondents based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. They were

age, gender, tenure in current university and whether one holds a management

position or not. Summary for the findings on all nine organisational antecedents of job

satisfaction were depicted in Table 5.41 below.

212

Table 5.41: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents of Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits and Contingent

Rewards

Organisational

Antecedent

Interview Findings

(n=17)

Survey Findings

(n=1078)

Overall

Satisfaction Arising Issues Overall

Satisfaction Gender Age Tenure Hold Management

Position or Not Pay Majority were

satisfied (10 respondents)

1. Academics in management level

were more satisfied towards pay 2. Equity issues in comparison to

private universities and senior

academics

Moderate (Mean= 3.17,

SD= 0.81)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics without

management

position were more

satisfied

Promotion Majority were

neither

dissatisfied nor


1. Both academics in management

and operational level had a modest

level of satisfaction with promotion 2. Equity issue raised by a senior

academic on her dissatisfaction with

the promotion opportunities for

newer staff


SD= 0.99)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics without

management

position were more

satisfied

Supervision Some were


and some were

dissatisfied (5 respondents)

1. Satisfactions were mostly from

management people, while

dissatisfactions were from the

operational level 2. Specific issues raised: - Fairness and consideration - Management strategy and

leadership - Consultation & freedom


SD= 0.79)

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with

supervision

Older academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

supervision

213

Fringe Benefits Half of the

respondents

were neither

dissatisfied nor


1. No obvious differences of overall

satisfaction among different

demographic backgrounds 2. No issues raised other than

general state of satisfaction with

fringe benefits


SD= 0.74)

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with fringe

benefits

Older

academics were

more satisfied

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with fringe

benefits

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with fringe befits

Contingent

Rewards Majority were

neither

dissatisfied nor


1. Issue of Recognition Moderate (Mean= 3.19,

SD= 0.78)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics without

management

position were more

satisfied Note: N = total respondents, = There was a significant difference in satisfaction scores

214

In summary, based on the results depicted in Table 5.41 there were several key

findings revealed in this chapter through the qualitative study and quantitative study

on the satisfaction with organisational antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision,

fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. Firstly, all the investigated antecedents

arising from the literature that lead to academics’ satisfaction were confirmed through

the qualitative study. These were then confirmed in the quantitative study as

important considerations in satisfaction with organisational antecedents. Secondly,

there were different types of ideas and issues identified by the interview respondents

in regards to the antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and

contingent rewards. Thirdly, academics in the qualitative study generally have a

moderate level of satisfaction with each of the organisational antecedents of pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. Interestingly,

academics in the quantitative study supported the findings from the qualitative study

where they were moderately satisfied with all the investigated antecedents. Fourthly,

some discussions and arguments spoken of by all interview respondents differed

based on several categories of demographic backgrounds. These differed among

academics in management level versus academics in operational level and between

senior academics and junior academics. Further investigations were undertaken in the

quantitative study to reveal any differences in satisfaction with all the organisational

antecedents by different type of demographic backgrounds.

Additionally, the selection of demographic backgrounds to be included in the

online study was based on the literature and past research. The specific results on

differences in satisfaction by different categories of age, gender, tenure and whether

one hold management position or not, can be found in Table 5.41. The findings in this

chapter that specifically focus on the antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision,

fringe benefits, and contingent rewards will be discussed further in Chapter 9

comparing with the findings of other past research.

Next, Chapter 6 will discuss the satisfaction with the other organisational

antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and communication

Chapter 7 will discuss the satisfaction with work-life balance using the findings of the

qualitative study and quantitative study. Chapter 8 explores these antecedents and

their effects on academics overall job satisfaction and intention to leave proposing a

comprehensive model of interrelationships between all antecedents.

215

Chapter 6

ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

OPERATING CONDITIONS, CO-WORKERS, NATURE OF WORK AND

COMMUNICATION

6.1 Introduction

This chapter is the continuity chapter of Chapter 5 and explains the key organisational

antecedents of academics’ job satisfaction based on key-person interviews and focus

groups conducted with respondents from three public universities in November and

December 2007. Furthermore, this chapter details the findings of the quantitative

study participated by academics from three participating universities from November

2008 to March 2009. In this chapter these antecedents are presented in four broad

organisational categories based on the studies of Oshagbemi (1997), Spector (1997),

Mohd Noor (2004), and Akpofure (2006).

The aims of this chapter were in accordance with the aims provided in Chapter

5. First, to understand respondents’ impressions and satisfactions on each of the

organisational antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, the nature of work,

and communication through a qualitative method and then to investigate differences

based on respondents’ demographic backgrounds. Second, to further investigate a

bigger scale of respondents through a quantitative method of data collection. The

study also aims to investigate differences in satisfaction with each of the

organisational antecedents among academics by different type of demographic

backgrounds.

Satisfaction with organisational factors operating conditions, co-workers, the

nature of work, and communication were identified by past research as influential

antecedents of job satisfaction, apart from several organisational antecedents of job

satisfaction explained in Chapter 5 and the study focused and explored these

antecedents. In Chapter 8, the study expands on this and tests the relationships

between satisfaction with organisational antecedents and overall job satisfaction.

216

The chapter is structured in six sections. First, the data categorised as

satisfaction with operating conditions is presented. The next sections categorise

satisfaction as satisfaction with co-workers, satisfaction with the nature of work and

satisfaction with communication. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in

Figure 6.1.

Section

Description

The section introduces the chapter and gives an overview

of the next sections.

The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study

and quantitative study specifically on operating conditions

satisfaction. The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study

and quantitative study specifically on co-workers


and quantitative study specifically on the nature of work


and quantitative study specifically on communication

satisfaction.


qualitative study and quantitative study and concludes the

chapter.


Each organisational antecedent is structured into three sub-sections. First, the

general feelings of satisfaction with each antecedent of interview respondents are

detailed. Second, issues that were raised by all interview respondents regarding

satisfaction with each antecedent are elaborated. Third, descriptive findings of the

quantitative study in regards with academics’ satisfaction with each antecedent are

presented.

6.1 Introduction

6.6 Conclusion

6.2 Operating Conditions

Satisfaction

6.3 Co-Workers Satisfaction

6.4 Nature of Work

Satisfaction

6.5 Communication

Satisfaction

217

6.2 Satisfaction with Operating Conditions

6.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions


university academics’ satisfaction is operating conditions. In each of interview

sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a question had been asked about

their general feelings of satisfaction with operating conditions. Table 6.1 presents this

data. Based on the findings in Table 6.1, only two interview respondents responded

that they are satisfied with operating conditions and both of them were the

management people (KP1 and KP2). Nine respondents responded that they are

dissatisfied with operating conditions, where three of them were academics in

management level (KP5, KP6, and KP7), and six of them were respondents in focus

groups (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG2-1, and FG2-3). Four key-persons had

responded neither dissatisfied nor satisfied to this question (KP6, KP8, FG1-5, and

FG1-6) and one respondents (KP3) gave unclear or no response towards the question.

Table 6.1: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with operating conditions


Responses

Key-person


KP3 Unclear/no response KP4 - KP5 Dissatisfied KP6 Dissatisfied KP7 Dissatisfied

KP8 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Dissatisfied

FG1-2 Dissatisfied

FG1-3 Dissatisfied

FG1-4 Dissatisfied

FG1-5 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied

FG1-6 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Dissatisfied

FG2-2 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied FG2-3 Dissatisfied

218

Therefore, as assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in

Chapter 2 and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents in the

qualitative study, it was clearly shown that academics considered operating conditions

as an influential factor that contributed towards their state of satisfaction, and in the

interviews it was regarded mostly as a source of dissatisfaction.

6.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents

As elaborated and discussed in Chapter 2, operating conditions was an issue regarded

by past research as one of the key antecedents of job satisfaction. In the qualitative

study, only two key-persons (KP1 and KP2) responded that they were satisfied with

the aspect of operating conditions. For instance, KP1 argued:

Anyway, I am still happy and satisfied because I managed to give a good

service as the administrator (of the university) and I do think that all my job

has been done perfectly (KP1 – Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).

KP2 also argued about his satisfaction, when he said:

I love to challenge myself. To be at this stage of career (being a deputy vice

chancellor of a university) is really challenging, and I feel really good! (KP2 –


6.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents

Nine respondents, which represent more than 50 percent of the overall interview

respondents, had responded that they were dissatisfied with the aspect of operating

conditions, and this is one of the key findings in the qualitative study. For instance, a

lecturer (FG1-1) shared his dissatisfaction:

A lot of works! Too many responsibilities! I know that teaching, conducting

research, and so forth are my responsibilities as an academic... Nonetheless

when I need to do everything in a same time… it will be a huge burden to me.

Just imagine, we academic staff need to carry out works like students’

administration, subjects registration for every semester, theses supervision,

students program, and so on (FG1-1 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October

2007).

219

In the next section, this dissatisfaction will be further elaborated.

6.2.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions

Apart from their general state of satisfaction with operating conditions, the interview

respondents also initiated discussions on several important issues that impacted on

their satisfaction with operating conditions. Table 6.2 below represents each of the

issues of satisfaction with operating conditions, spoken of and discussed by

interviewed key-persons and focus groups.

Pertaining to this antecedent of job satisfaction, three central issues had been

discussed in the interviews with most of the key-persons and academics in both focus

group interviews. These issues are facilities at workplace, uninterrupted working

conditions and work responsibilities.

There were several key-points revealed from Table 6.2 based on the responses

given by key-persons and focus group members. As we can see, all the three issues

were spoken of mostly by focus group members who were academics in the

operational level of the universities. Academics in management level had spoken only

of two issues which were facilities at workplace and holding too many

responsibilities.

The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on each

issue and highlight key findings from each issue.

220

Table 6.2: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with operating conditions in the qualitative study



Operating Conditions KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3


X X X X

- Uninterrupted working

conditions

X X X X X X

- Work responsibilities

X X X X X X


221

6.2.2.1 Facilities at the workplace

On this aspect, four of the interview respondents (KP5, FG1-2, FG1-3 and FG2-3) had

revealed their dissatisfaction with various facilities at their workplace respectively.

FG1-2 and FG1-3 simultaneously pointed out their view in their focus group

interview when they elaborated:

I refer to the facilities provided by the university like books, journal and

unlimited internet usage. These factors aid academics to add up the quality and

quantity of their academic outputs because that could assist in gaining greater

access for academic sources (FG1-2 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October

2007).

I agree with you (FG1-2). From the aspect of the working environment and

facilities provided, it will contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If

photocopy machines in the office are not working well, A4 papers for notes or

lecture’s activities are not sufficient, or lecture halls are not conducive, it will

disturb the smoothness of our teaching process. Toilet, café, office, common

room and so on also do effect our job satisfaction if these facilities are not

being managed properly (FG1-3 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

A head of department (KP5) also mentioned about the importance of having a good

condition of facilities at the university which in turn is a satisfaction factor for him:

I am not satisfied with the problematic lecture halls and tutorial rooms… they

are too small… not enough chairs for students, no LCD... I do not like to

implement ‘a chalk and talk’ approach when teaching. I am a kind of lecturer

who likes to use latest technology for teaching. When in reality, these facilities

are not well equipped; I am not happy and dissatisfied. (KP5 – Key-person


A tutor (FG2-3) argued particularly about the library of her university which

contributed to her dissatisfaction:

I think, what could make me satisfied is more comprehensive books and

references provided by the university library. With complete library source, it

222

would help me provide enough references and materials to lecture... Other

universities will also value a university if it could build up its library with

complete quality books and references. As for me, for a new university to be

developed, the management needs to put the library as one of the main

elements to be built first (FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

So, of the four respondents speaking on this issue, there seemed to be dissatisfaction

among them with the facilities provided in their workplace.

6.2.2.2 Uninterrupted Working Conditions

Another issue pertaining to operating conditions is uninterrupted working conditions.

Six interview respondents (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-1 and FG2-3)

admitted that work interruptions could affect their satisfaction. This issue was spoken

of extensively by two tutors (FG1-4 and FG2-3).

FG1-4 clearly felt uncomfortable when his administration roles interfere with

his teaching especially if it is unexpectedly popped up. He argued that:

If there are too many distractions at workplace, those distractions will make

one stressful, uncomfortable and then dissatisfied. For example, when I want

to make a test in my class, all of a sudden there is an ad-hock meeting or an

occasion needs to be attended. Because of this, I need to cancel my students’

test and find other day to do it. I am really upset if this situation happens. I

can’t say no to these ad-hock tasks. However at the same time I need to deliver

my lecture and finish my syllabus. If I am always distracted with all these

things, how could I focus on my classes? I feel uncomfortable and dissatisfied


A tutor in another focus group (FG2-3) spoke of the same issue of too much

administration work. She added that lack of planning by the management also

interrupted academics’ focus on teaching and research:

In terms of management planning such as faculty’s annual programs planning,

I am really upset with any ad-hock programs that were not listed in the

planning phase. This improper planning of faculty programs will disturb

academics’ teaching timetables and their allocated times for doing research,

223

writing and so on. The delegation of tasks for each program is also bothersome

because it was not really clear who is supposed to do what (FG2-3 – Focus


6.2.2.3 Work responsibilities

The issue of work responsibilities was revealed by many interview respondents (KP6,

KP7, FG1-1, FG1-4 and FG1-6) either as a cause of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in

terms of operating conditions. With many speaking of the overloading of

administration roles in conflict with academic work, a Provost of a university branch

(KP6) admitted that he is not satisfied with his management role when he said:

I am not satisfied maybe because I need to focus more on my responsibility as

a director of the campus and cannot spend quality time on my academic

responsibility. You know, I cannot blame anybody because I was assigned by

the university… and I have agreed to do my job the best I can. I am just not

satisfied with the academic aspect because I cannot focus on it. I am thinking

of not renewing my contract as the campus provost after this and dedicate

myself fully to academic responsibility (KP6 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

Dissatisfaction with the burden of multiple responsibilities was also shared by a

deputy provost of a university branch’s campus (KP7). He explained:

…One big question that I always asked myself was when will I stop holding

this administrative position while at the same time I am also a lecturer? This

administrative responsibility disturbed my focus on teaching, and do what I

am supposed to do as an academic. I need to choose just one of these two

responsibilities, not both… for the sake of my job satisfaction (KP7 – Key-

person Interview, 1 November 2007).

A tutor (FG1-6) commented on the burdens that need to be carried out by academic

staff appointed as administrators in the university:

Academics are also hampered by administrative responsibilities and need to go

through rigid performance appraisal process. It will limit our good academic

development. Some academic staff in this university had been burdened with

224

administrative positions which would make their intellectual quality wasted

and limited opportunity to develop their academic knowledge (FG1-6 – Focus


Another tutor (FG1-4) in the same focus group interview backed the arguments of

FG1-6. He depicted the consequence of holding too many responsibilities such as

administration tasks:

I believe that when somebody is being assigned with an administration

position for a long period, this will limit their efforts on knowledge and

intellectual development… it is because their number one focus now is no

longer on academic but more towards their administrative works. This could

risk their job satisfaction (FG1-4 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

In contrast, there were also interview respondents who expressed their job

satisfaction despite holding multiple responsibilities and their arguments were

mentioned in the preceding section. Both of these key-persons (KP1 and KP2) felt

satisfied with the responsibilities they carried out. Maybe their satisfaction derived

from the fact that both of them are at the top management level and could focus on

their administration career.

Furthermore, they have no role overload like others including academics who

responded to this issue who did not hold a management role. Academic staff members

still see themselves as having an academic career while the management people hold

minimum responsibility towards academic roles such as teaching, and doing research.


groups, it was revealed that operating conditions lead towards academics’

dissatisfaction. Apart from the findings of general state of satisfaction, the study also

showed that there were three specific key-issues being spoken of by respondents

which were perceived as sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in regards to

operating conditions. These issues were facilities at workplace, uninterrupted working

conditions and work responsibilities. Mainly, the respondents asserted that they were

dissatisfied with the issues raised in the interviews.

Overall satisfaction and each of sub-issues on operating conditions were either

the same or different based on different categories of demographic backgrounds

among interview respondents. These were interesting and therefore, regarded by the

225

study as an important dimension to be included in the questionnaire in the quantitative

study.

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with operating

conditions among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions

to be answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with operating conditions?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with operating conditions among

academics by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in

current university, and holding a management position or not?

6.2.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with operating

conditions in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Operating Conditions Satisfaction’

was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction with

operating conditions. The scale adapted Spector’s (1997) operating conditions

questionnaire in Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Four items included in this measure

were suitable to reflect key findings in interviews with key informants and focus

groups in the.

6.2.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Operating Conditions

Table 6.3 below presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for

each of the four questions on operating conditions satisfaction responded by survey

respondents. All questions in operating conditions satisfaction were negatively

worded questions; hence all of the responses for Question 26, Question 27, Question

28, and Question 29 were reverse-coded.

Based on the responses for all the questions on operating conditions,

respondents thought that many of universities’ rules and procedures make doing a

good job difficult (Question 26: Mean= 2.73, SD= 1.16). Furthermore, they thought

that their efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape and bureaucracy

(Question 27: Mean= 2.55, SD= 1.07). Respondents also thought that they have too

226

much to do at work (Question 28: Mean= 2.36, SD= 1.13) and face too much

paperwork (Question 29: Mean= 2.41, SD= 1.15).

Table 6.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Operating

Conditions Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 26# : Many of our rules and

procedures make doing

a good job difficult.

(Mean= 2.73, SD=1.16)

154 14.3 385 35.7 189 17.5 296 27.5 54 5.0

Question 27#: My efforts to do a good

job are seldom blocked

by red tape. (Mean= 2.55, SD=1.07)

165 15.3 451 41.8 199 18.5 234 21.7 29 2.7

Question 28# : I have too much to do at

work (e.g. lecturing,

doing research,

administration tasks,

etc.). (Mean= 2.36, SD=1.13)

236 21.9 493 45.7 130 12.1 163 15.1 56 5.2

Question 29# : I have too much

paperwork (e.g.

lecturing, doing

research, administration

tasks, etc.). (Mean= 2.41, SD=1.15)

246 22.8 424 39.3 182 16.9 173 16.0 53 4.9

Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,


5=agree very much. #= Negatively worded question.

In accordance to the findings in Table 6.3, a further analysis was undertaken to

investigate the overall level of satisfaction with operating conditions. The result

shows that respondents had a low level of satisfaction with operating conditions

(Mean= 2.51, SD=0.82). The finding of the quantitative study supported the outcome

of the qualitative study where academics were generally dissatisfied with the aspect of

operating conditions. The finding also supports the outcome of Oshagbemi (1999) and

Koustelios (2001) where physical conditions or working facilities was a dissatisfying

factor among their respondents respectively. On the other hand, Akpofure et al.

227

(2006) reported a different outcome, where college educators in Nigeria had a high

level of satisfaction with operating conditions specifically in regard to workloads.

Based on the comparison of the present study with past research, it is

interesting to investigate further the differences of satisfaction with operating

conditions based on different categories of demographic backgrounds of academics.


Gender

Table 6.4 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with operating conditions among

academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in

scores for male academics (Mean=3.28, SD=0.82) and female academics

[Mean=3.09, SD=0.73; t (1041)= 3.99, p=0.14]. This finding was different to the

works of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among university academics in Nigeria, and

Arif et al. (2012) among university teachers in Pakistan, Koustelios (2001) who found

significant differences of satisfaction between male and female respondents, where

women were more satisfied with their working conditions than men.


Academics by Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig.

(2-

tailed) Male

(n=533) Female

(n=510)


Operating

Conditions

2.56

0.80

2.48

0.84

1.84

0.18

1041

3.99

0.14



228


Age

Table 6.5 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with operating

conditions among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there

was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with

operating conditions among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=4.614, p<0.05].

Table 6.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions



Between Groups 12.02 4 3.01 4.614 0.001**


Total 601.62 909




operating conditions among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction was shown by the group aged 56 years old and over

(M=2.97, SD=0.66), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old

(M=2.43, SD=0.82).

Table 6.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics

by Age Age Groups n Mean SD 25 &

under

26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over

25 & under 47 2.72 0.80 -

26-35 442 2.44 0.82 NS -

36-45 255 2.48 0.84 NS NS -

46-55 142 2.64 0.74 NS NS NS -

56 & over 24 2.97 0.66 NS * * NS -



229

Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics of 56

years old and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to

those aged between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant

difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.

Based on these findings together with some evidence in the qualitative study,

it is obvious that older academics were more satisfied with the aspect of operating

conditions because they could easily adapt to any difficulties or problems at the

workplace. Evidenced by the responses given in the interview by KP1 and KP2,

where both of them were now more than 50 years old, they thought that any problems

occurred need to be treated as a challenge. According to them, that could lead to job

satisfaction.


Tenure

Table 6.7 shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with operating conditions



different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.40, p<0.05].

Table 6.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions



Between Groups 6.63 3 2.21 3.40 0.017**


Total 590.30 901




operating conditions among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the

highest mean value of satisfaction was shown by academics who have worked

between 21 to 30 years (M=2.90, SD=0.68), while the lowest mean was scored by

academics in the tenure group of 31 years and over (M=1.75, SD=0.43).

230

Table 6.8: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics by Tenure

Tenure n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 2.48 0.81 -

11-20 147 2.49 0.80 NS -

21-30 29 2.90 0.68 * NS -

31 & over 3 1.75 0.43 NS NS NS -





level of operating conditions satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and

under (M=2.48, SD=0.81). The conclusion is senior academics have a higher

satisfaction with operating conditions than their junior counterparts. This finding is

different with the outcomes of Saygi et al. (2011) and Toker (2011) where they did

not find any significant differences of satisfaction with operating conditions between

different groups of tenure among university academics. Therefore, the specific finding

in the current study is one of the key contributions in this thesis. In particular, the

finding filled the gap in the investigation of satisfaction with operating conditions by

different tenure subgroups.


Management Position

Table 6.9 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with operating conditions among

academics by either holding a management position or not holding a management

position. t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for


do not hold a management position [M=2.49, SD=0.80; t (927)= 3.15, p=0.75].

Therefore, no differences were found between academics with or without a

management position, in regards to their satisfaction with operating conditions.

Furthermore, the current study’s finding were dissimilar with the outcome of

Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees in Isfahan

231

University Hospitals in Iran, where academics who were appointed to be the

managers showed less satisfaction towards operating condition than their employees.

The quantitative finding in the survey is consistent with the responses given by the

respondents in the qualitative study where some of them among those with a

management position and those without a management position, mentioned that they

are dissatisfied with operating conditions (see page 207). This might be so because

academics in both of the categories work in the same university’s setting of operation

such as the responsibility to handle lectures and doing research.



Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Operating

Condition 2.49 0.80 2.50 0.82 0.004 0.95 927 3.15 0.75




6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction

In a nutshell, a low level of satisfaction with operating conditions had been shown by

the majority of respondents in the qualitative study. These dissatisfactions came from

both groups of academics in the management level and operational level.

Furthermore, three focal specific issues pertaining to operating conditions have been

raised by interview respondents. The issues were facilities at workplace, work

interruptions, and holding too many responsibilities.

A low satisfaction level towards operating conditions was also shown by

respondents in the quantitative study. The findings support the outcome of Koustelios

(2001) where teachers in Greece had low satisfaction with operating conditions.

232

More specifically in regards to satisfaction with operating conditions, older

academics were more satisfied than younger academics, and seniors were more

satisfied than juniors. As mentioned by a key-person (KP2) in the preliminary

interview, from time to time, he loves to challenge himself, and as such, he is now a

deputy vice chancellor of his university after 25 years of service. In regards to the

issue of operating condition, KP2 treated his job and his job responsibility as a

challenge no matter how hard and big it was; with lesser expectations of what could

be provided. This is an evidence of how some senior or older academics deal with

operating conditions in the workplace and they are happy with their jobs.

There were no significant differences of satisfaction with operating conditions

between males and females and between academics with and without management

position. In regards to gender differences, the current study’s finding was opposite

with that of Koustelios (2001) who found significant differences between

satisfaction between male and female teachers in Greece with women were more

satisfied with their working conditions than men.

In terms of satisfaction with operating conditions among academics by those

holding a management position or not holding a management position, there was no

significant difference in scores.. This is also evidenced in the qualitative part of this

research with dissatisfactions shared by some key-persons (for instance KP5, KP6,

and KP7), those with management positions, and focus group interviewees (for

instance FG1-1, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-1, and FG2-3) who are academics without

management position However the current study’s outcome did not support the

findings of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees in

Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran.

6.3 Satisfaction with Co-Workers

Collegial relationships or interpersonal relations with co-workers interpreted by

Brown (2008:17) as pleasant or unpleasant interactions with persons at the same level

of the organisational hierarchy and is regarded as key to job satisfaction. Based on the

interpersonal relations among co-workers, scholars and researchers tend to justify it as

one of the critical and relevant factors that could impact on one’s job satisfaction (see

Spector, 1997; Tu et al., 2005).

233

6.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Co-Workers

The next organisational factor that serves as one of the antecedents of university

academics satisfaction is co-workers. In each of the interview sessions held with the

entire interview respondents, a question had been asked about their general feelings of

satisfaction with co-workers. Table 6.10 presents this data.

Table 6.10: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with co-workers


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Unclear/no response KP2 Unclear/no response

KP3 Satisfied KP4 - KP5 Satisfied KP6 Unclear/no response KP7 Satisfied KP8 Satisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Satisfied

FG1-2 Satisfied

FG1-3 Dissatisfied FG1-4 Satisfied FG1-5 Dissatisfied

FG1-6 Satisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Satisfied

FG2-2 Dissatisfied

FG2-3 Dissatisfied

Based on the findings in Table 6.10, nine interview respondents responded

that they are satisfied with co-workers (KP3, KP5, KP7, KP8, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4,

FG1-6, and FG2-1). Four respondents mentioned that they are dissatisfied with co-

workers and all of them were academics in focus groups (FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-2 and

FG2-3). Three key-persons gave unclear or no response towards the question (KP1,

KP2, and KP6). Therefore, evidenced by the responses given by the interview

respondents in the qualitative study, the majority of them agreed that the co-workers

factor is a positive driver towards their job satisfaction. Nevertheless, four

dissatisfaction responses could not be ignored as it was an indication that there were

234

some issues of co-workers regarded as a negative driver towards job satisfaction

among academics.

6.3.1.1 Satisfied Respondents

The satisfactions mentioned by both groups of academics who were in the

management level or in the operational level. For instance, a head of department

(KP5) asserted:

I think my relationship with other academics is very good.... it is significantly

impacted my job satisfaction (KP5- Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

A tutor (FG2-1) argued:

I love to work with the other lecturers… They did not make me unhappy to

work or dissatisfied to this extent (FG2-1 – Focus Group Interview, 25

October 2007).

6.3.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents


generally satisfied with co-workers, there were also some respondents who brought up

his or her dissatisfaction in the interviews. For example, a female tutor (FG2-3)

disclosed that she was not happy with the relationship with her colleagues because of

no ‘family spirit’ in her workplace.

6.3.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Pertaining to Co-Workers

Apart from the interview respondents’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction with co-

workers, they also raised and initiated discussions on two specific issues that

impacted on their satisfaction with co-workers. Table 6.11 represents each of the

issues of satisfaction with co-workers, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-

persons and focus groups.

Pertaining to this antecedent of job satisfaction, two central issues had been

discussed in the interviews with most of the key-persons and academics in both focus

235

group interviews. These issues are cooperation among colleagues and the nature of

constructive competition among colleagues.

As we can see, the issue of cooperation among colleagues were spoken by

almost all respondents from key-person interviews and focus group interviews, while

only two respondents initiated discussion on the issue of the nature of constructive

competition among colleagues.

The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on both

issues and highlight key findings from each issue.

236

Table 6.11: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with co-workers in the qualitative study



Co-workers KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Cooperation among colleagues

X X X X X X X X X X X X

- Nature of healthy competition

X X


237

6.3.2.1 Cooperation among colleagues

Mostly, based on their experience and preference of having a good relationship with

colleagues, eight interview respondents (KP3, KP5, KP7, KP8, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-6,

and FG2-1) had spoken positively that they were satisfied with the factor of

cooperation among colleagues. Several comments that accentuated this view were:

Relationship with colleagues really impacted our satisfaction... except for

those who are individualistic and don’t really like to work collectively with

others. Bear in mind that in this university, we really need to work as a team

and we need to get others’ support, hence good relationship with colleagues

really helps to maintain our job satisfaction (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26

October 2007).

…Support given by people around the workplace especially colleagues in

academic line…create a vigorous and cheerful workplace (FG1-6 – Focus


A Deputy Provost of a public university branch (KP7) asserted that good cooperation

provided by his academic staff could influence his job satisfaction. He asserted:

I could not do all my work individually. I always depend on my colleagues’

help. If they do not co-operate with me, it will make me a bit dissatisfied. For

instance, we (the university management people) implemented a policy where

students need to wear a proper and smart dressing etiquette in the campus. If

my academic staff who are also my colleagues do not maintain and support

this policy, how can we successfully put into practice of this good policy? If

they do not encourage students to wear proper attire by letting them (the

students) wearing t-shirt and jeans, it undoubtedly shows that lecturers do not

co-operate with us (the university management people). I (as one of the

university management people) will then feel dishonoured (KP7 – Key-person


238

Nevertheless, satisfaction with cooperation among colleagues was not shared

by several other interview respondents. In this case, four interview respondents in

focus group interviews (FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-2, and FG2-3) pointed out their

dissatisfaction which they regarded it as an issue of ‘no family surroundings’ among

colleagues.

For example, their dissatisfaction was strongly expressed by a lecturer (FG2-

2) and a tutor (2-3):

In my faculty, everybody (academics) minds his or her own business. No

family surroundings. If there is any welfare problem faced by one of us,

nobody will realise it. Compared to my previous workplace, I am quite

shocked with this negative culture in the faculty (FG2-2 – Focus Group


When we work with a sense of family spirit, we will strive towards the

achievement of our shared aims and vision. Honestly I admit that I am not

really satisfied with my relationship with others here and I am not happy with

it (FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).

So even though collegial relationship is a key towards job satisfaction, not all

respondents regarded these as positive in their university settings.

6.3.2.2 Nature of constructive competition among colleagues

One lecturer (FG1-1) had brought up an issue of competing spirit among his

colleagues. He described the issue as a positive impact towards academics’

satisfaction:

…the nature of ‘competition between academic colleagues’ to present papers

or further studies really enhanced our job satisfaction. Whomsoever strives

and shows hard works, he will get the opportunity to do so (presents his papers

and further his study). Nobody will be exasperated…or get jealous. If they

want to show a good achievement, they will work harder. Based on my

experiences working in the previous organisations, I admit that people were

very individualistic. They work for their own success, for their own increment,

for their own promotion (FG1-1 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

239


groups, it was clear that co-workers was generally perceived as an influential factor

giving significant implications that further leads to academics’ job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction.

Apart from the general satisfaction and dissatisfaction findings, the study also

showed that there were two specific issues being spoken of by respondents which

were perceived as important measures on academics’ satisfaction with co-workers.

These issues were cooperation among colleagues and the nature of constructive

competition among colleagues.

Overall satisfaction and each of the sub-issues on co-workers were either

shared or differed based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among

interview respondents, especially between management people and academics in the

operational level. These were interesting and therefore had initiated two research


respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with co-workers?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with co-workers among academics by



6.3.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with co-workers in the

quantitative study. The scale of ‘Co-Workers Satisfaction’ adapted from Spector

(1997)’s JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics’

satisfaction with co-workers. Four items included in this measure reflect the general

satisfaction and key issues in the findings of interviews with key-persons and focus

groups in the qualitative study.

240

6.3.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Co-Workers

The results of each questions used in the measure are depicted in Table 6.12.

All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 31 and 33) were reverse-

coded.


Co-Workers Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 30: I like the people I work

with. (Mean= 3.84, SD=0.70)

9 0.8 40 3.7 192 17.8 710 65.9 127 11.8

Question 31# : I find I have to work

harder at my job because

of the incompetence of

people I work with. (Mean= 3.08, SD=0.99)

42 3.9 314 29.1 296 27.5 371 34.4 55 5.1

Question 32: I enjoy my co-workers. (Mean= 3.87, SD=0.69)

7 0.6 34 3.2 190 17.6 711 66.0 136 12.6

Question 33# : There is too much

bickering and fighting at

work. (Mean= 3.25, SD=1.11)

69 6.4 224 20.8 284 26.3 369 34.2 132 12.2




The majority of the respondents responded that they like the people they work

with (Question 30; f= 837, %= 77.7). Also, they found that they enjoy working with

their co-workers (Question 32; Mean= 3.87, SD= 0.69). The answer given by

respondents for these two questions showed that mostly, co-workers are regarded as

those who contributed so much towards academics’ job satisfaction.

On the other hand, respondents were moderately satisfied when they need to

work harder because of the incompetence of their co-workers (Question 31; Mean=

3.08, SD= 0.99). Although most of the academics regarded co-workers as a factor that

241

contributed to satisfaction, nearly one third of the respondents thought that their co-

workers are incapable of getting jobs done, and they have no choice other than to

multiply their work effort.

Respondents were also responded that the working atmosphere at their

workplace were fine with not much bickering and fighting among co-workers

(Question 33, Mean=3.25, SD=1.11). However, the fact that 293 respondents (27.2%)

argued that they agreed and agreed very much that there was too much bickering and

fighting at workplace cannot be ignored. This finding mirrored that not all academics

thought of co-workers as an indicator towards ‘happiness’ in the workplace, and

clashes and misunderstanding can always happen among colleagues at workplace.

Based on the findings in Table 6.12, a further analysis was undertaken to

investigate the overall level of satisfaction with co-workers. The result shows that the

quantitative study respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers

(Mean= 3.51, SD=0.62). This finding supports the outcome of Ghazi et al. (2010),

where university teachers in the North West frontier province of Pakistan had a

moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. The current study’s finding also

reiterates the findings of Oshagbemi (1997) who found higher education institution

academics in the UK had a moderate level of co-workers satisfaction. Conversely, this

is different with the finding of Akpofure et al. (2006) among educators in Nigeria and

with the finding of Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane (1999) among academics in

traditional Scottish Universities, where they found that their respondents had a high

level of satisfaction with co-workers.

Subsequently, the findings of the quantitative study supported the outcomes of

the qualitative study that the co-workers factor was perceived by some academics as

an important antecedent towards satisfaction and dissatisfaction for some others. It

was also revealed that co-workers satisfaction was an important antecedent of job

satisfaction among academics. This finding also supports the outcome of Tu et al.

(2005) where they found that interactions with co-workers is found to be the most

important variable of job satisfaction in their study among academics in Taiwan and

China.

242


Gender

Table 6.13 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with co-workers among

academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in


[Mean=3.41, SD=0.62; t (1041)= 4.72, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that male

academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of co-workers compared to female

academics. The finding is different to Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane’s (1999) and

Saygi et al.’s (2011), findings among academics in Scottish universities and Turkish

universities where females have a higher level of satisfaction with colleagues than

males.

Table 6.13: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by

Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Co-Workers 3.59 0.61 3.41 0.62 0.12 0.73 1041 4.72 0.00**

Note: n=total respondents, M=Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for



6.3.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Age

Table 6.14 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with co-workers


statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with co-workers


243

Table 6.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among

Academics by Age Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 8.81 4 2.20 5.597 0.00**


Total 365.06 909




co-workers among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction was shown by the group of 46 to 55 years old (M=3.71,

SD=0.68), while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old

(M=3.43, SD=0.63). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that

academics between 46 to 55 years old were significantly have higher mean of

satisfaction compared to those between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No


Table 6.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Co-Workers among Academics

by Age Age

Groups

n Mean SD 25 &

under

26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over

25 & under

47 3.49 0.45 -

26-35

442 3.43 0.63 NS -

36-45

255 3.49 0.62 NS NS -

46-55

142 3.71 0.68 NS * * -

56 & over

24 3.64 0.63 NS NS NS NS -



This might be so because, older academics have a longer experience working

with others and that experience taught them on judging the significant contribution of

their colleagues towards their own job satisfaction. Evidenced by responses given by

several ‘senior academics’ in the qualitative study, they were inclined to talk about

their satisfaction with co-workers based on their own vast working experience. For

244

instance, a senior lecturer (KP3) asserted that based on her experience working as an

academic, ‘good relationship among colleagues really impacted her satisfaction

specifically and the academics generally’ (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26 October

2007).

6.3.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Tenure

Table 6.16 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with co-workers

among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no


different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=1.72, p=0.16]. Hence, there is no difference of

satisfaction with co-workers between different subgroups of tenure. This finding is a

significant and important attempt on improving the work of Hunt and Saul (1975) and

Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in investigating the differences of satisfaction with

co-workers by different groups of tenure in the current university.

Table 6.16: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among

Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 2.05 3 0.68 1.72 0.16


Total 359.87 901




Management Position

Table 6.17 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with co-workers among

academics by either holding management position or not. T-test results indicated that

there was no significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management

position (M=3.48, SD=0.61) and academics that do not hold a management position

[M=3.52, SD=0.66; t (927)= 0.85, p=0.40]. The finding opposes the outcome of Rad

245

and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees were significantly less satisfied with

co-workers compared to senior managers, middle managers, and first line managers.

Table 6.17: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by

Management Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Co-Workers 3.52 0.66 3.48 0.61 3.36 0.67 927 0.85 0.40

Note: n=total respondents, M= mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levene’s test for



6.3.4 Summary of Key Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction

All in all, a state of satisfaction with co-workers is shown by most of the respondents

in the qualitative study. This was shared among those who were academics in the

management level and operational level. However, there were also some of the

academics in the operational level who responded that were dissatisfied with the co-

workers factor.

Apart from that, there were two main issues initiated and discussed among the

interview respondents in regards to satisfaction with co-workers, which were

cooperation among colleagues and the nature of constructive competition among

colleagues.

Based on the findings in the quantitative study, respondents showed a

moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. This finding supports the outcome of

Ghazi et al. (2010), where university teachers in the North West frontier province of

Pakistan had a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. The current study’s

finding also reiterates the findings of Oshagbemi (1997) who found higher education

institution academics in the UK had a moderate level of co-workers satisfaction.

Conversely, this is different with the finding of Akpofure et al. (2006) among

educators in Nigeria and with the finding of Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane (1999)

246

among academics in traditional Scottish Universities, where they found that their

respondents had a high level of satisfaction with co-workers. Evidenced from the

comparisons with the findings in the past studies, it is obvious that co-workers is not a

factor that is based on national context. Based on the findings in the qualitative study,

mixed commentaries of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among academics are

demonstrate that satisfaction with co-workers is derived from the relationship and

connection between the academic staff members. For instance, a key-person (KP3)

asserted that relationships with the other academics in the university really impacted

his satisfaction,. He added that academic staff members should work as a team and

need to support each other, hence, good relationship will help maintain high job

satisfaction.

Moreover, pertaining to satisfaction with co-workers, males were more

satisfied than females and the finding is different to Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane’s

(1999) and Saygi et al.’s (2011), findings among academics in Scottish universities

and Turkish universities where females have a higher level of satisfaction with

colleagues than males. The current study finding shows the impact of Malaysian

context that is different to the culture of the other countries. In this context it may be

that males have better relationships with higher status workers, or have less family –

work conflict or have better opportunities for promotion and hence are not so

concerned about co-workers as a threat..

Older academics were also more satisfied with their co-workers than younger

academics. This might be so because, older academics have a longer experience

working with others and that experience taught them to see co-workers as colleagues

rather than threats. . Evidenced by responses given by several ‘senior academics’ in

the qualitative study, they were inclined to talk about their satisfaction with co-

workers based on their own vast working experience. For instance, a senior lecturer

(KP3) asserted that based on her experience working as an academic, ‘good

relationship among colleagues really impacted her satisfaction specifically and the

academics generally’ (KP3 – Key-person Interview, 26 October 2007).

There was no significant difference between senior and junior academics in

terms of satisfaction with co-workers. This finding is significant and is an important

attempt to build on the work of Hunt and Saul (1975) and Rad and Yarmohammadian

(2006) in investigating the differences of satisfaction with co-workers by different

247

groups of tenure. Furthermore, this finding addressed the gap between satisfaction

with co-workers and tenure in the Malaysian context.

Finally, there was no significant difference of satisfaction with co-workers

between those with and without management position. This finding differs to the

outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where academics in the lower rank of

the organisational hierarchy, were significantly less satisfied with co-workers

compared to their senior managers, middle managers, and first line managers. In

regards to the current study’s finding, these similar results confirm those found in the

qualitative parts of the study. As KP3 asserted in the key-person interview, those

people who are individualistic and do not really like to work collectively with others

is a factor that impeding job satisfaction among the other academics. He added that

everybody should work collectively, support each other, and create a good teamwork

spirit among each other.

6.4 Satisfaction with the Nature of Work

6.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with the Nature of Work


university academics’ satisfaction is nature of work. Spector (1996) described

satisfaction with the nature of work as satisfaction with the type of work done. In each

of the interview sessions held with the entire group of interview respondents, a

question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with the nature of

work. These answers were coded based on whether they spoke of these in terms of

satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; or no response was

given or it was unclear. Table 6.18 below presents this data.

248

Table 6.18: Interview respondents’ general satisfaction with nature of work


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Satisfied KP2 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied

KP3 Satisfied KP4 - KP5 Satisfied KP6 Dissatisfied KP7 Satisfied KP8 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Unclear Response

FG1-2 Unclear Response

FG1-3 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied

FG1-4 Satisfied FG1-5 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied FG1-6 Satisfied

Focus Group

2

FG2-1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied FG2-2 Unclear Response FG2-3 Satisfied

Based on the findings in Table 6.18, seven interview respondents responded

that they are satisfied with the nature of work (KP1, KP5. KP7, FG1-4, FG1-6, and

FG2-3). For instance, a tutor’s argument was made clearly about this matter:

One of the factors that really make me satisfied is the job itself. As a lecturer,

it is my responsibility to deliver knowledge and share it with others especially

my students. To work as a lecturer really makes me satisfied (FG1-4 – Focus


Five respondents mentioned that they are neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

(KP2, KP8, FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-1). Only one respondent (KP6) responded that he is

dissatisfied with the nature of work at his university and three respondents gave an

unclear response or no response at all (FG1-1, FG1-2, and FG2-2).

Therefore, evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents in

the qualitative study, a lot of them believed that nature of work contributes to their job

satisfaction, while some did not really know whether or not nature of work contributes

towards their job satisfaction. These are mixed views on nature of work shared by

them where some spoke positively while the others negatively.

249

6.4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Regarding to the Nature of

Work Satisfaction

Apart from their general state of satisfaction with the nature of work, the interview

respondents also raised and initiated discussions on several important key issues that

impacted on their satisfaction with the nature of work.

Table 6.19 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with the nature

of work, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-persons and focus groups. These

issues were segregated based on keywords and key points of satisfaction with the

nature of work.

Three major issues were spoken of by the interview respondents. As shown in

Table 6.19, the issues were the job itself, the student factor, and the nature of teaching

and research. There were several key-points revealed based on the responses given by

key-persons and focus group members. In the issue of the job itself, five academics

from the focus group interviews had gave their opinions and explanations, compared

to only two key-persons who responded towards the issue.

Equally, academics from both groups of management people and academics in

the operational level responded towards the other two issues of students’ factor and

the nature of teaching & research. The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions

among respondents on both issues and highlight key findings from each issue.

250

Table 6.19: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with the nature of work in the qualitative study



The nature of work KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- The job itself

X X X X X X X


X X X X X X X X X

- The nature of teaching &

research X

X X X


251

6.4.2.1 The job itself

As mentioned by the respondents, the issue of ‘the job itself’ was agreed to be

an important facet of their job satisfaction. Several respondents (FG1-1, FG1-4 and

FG2-2) believed that this factor contributed to their satisfaction, as FG1-4 put it

‘…this job (being an academic) is incomparable (FG1-4 – Focus Group Interview, 26

October 2007). However, a university branch’s provost (KP6) accentuated his

dissatisfaction with this factor:

I am not satisfied…. dissatisfied with my teaching and learning responsibility

because I can’t put my full focus towards it (KP6 – Key-person Interview, 1

November 2007).

KP6 believed that his function as an academic has been shadowed off with the

management responsibility that he has to carry out. Hence, in these two cases as

spoken of previously, this dissatisfaction is linked to too many responsibilities and the

conflict with their academic roles.

6.4.2.2 Students’ factor

Several interview respondents confessed that they enjoy the moments when

their students were visibly attracted to their teaching (KP3, KP5, KP7, FG1-1, FG1-2,

FG1-3 and FG2-3). The view is robustly expressed by a tutor (FG2-3) as follows:

My experience as tutor is not so wide compared to others (in the university…

but I can feel the total satisfaction when my students give positive reflections

upon my lectures. It shows that they enjoy my classes and it really makes me

happy... like, mission accomplished! (FG2-3 – Focus Group Interview, 25

October 2007).

Others in the interviews who responded to this issue (KP8 and FG2-1) thought

that students’ academic achievement is a driver towards their satisfaction. An

associate professor depicted this in her statement:

252

I do think my satisfaction is caused more from students’ success and

achievement. If my students are collectively excellent, I will be happy and

satisfied. If they are not excellent in their study, I will be concerned whether it

is because of my poor teaching or the students themselves are not good

enough? If my students’ achievements are good, I will be very happy, proud

and feel like I have achieved something in my career (KP8 – Key-person


6.4.2.3 The Nature of Teaching and Research

Four interview respondents responded on the influence of teaching and

research towards job satisfaction. A dean of a faculty (KP1) asserted that teaching is a

critical element to measure an academic staff’s achievement and in the same time

could contribute to his or her satisfaction. As she argued:

I really think that teaching is the most influencing factor towards job

satisfaction. It is because through teaching process, an academic could

implement all the knowledge he or she has to be delivered and shared with the

students. Teaching is a critical element as a benchmark of an academic’s

performance. I really think that this element always giving high satisfaction to

academics (KP1 – Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).

KP1’s arguments were supported by what a male lecturer mentioned:

Satisfaction for me is also in teaching, especially when I managed to complete

the syllabus for some subject (FG2-2 – Focus Group Interview, 25 October

2007).

While KP1 and FG2-2 argued that teaching impacted academics’ job

satisfaction, a program coordinator cum associate professor (KP8) believed that

conducting research is the most satisfying element:

I think doing research is the most satisfying task to do. When we conduct any

research, we could understand the reality of the world through the research

findings. In the same time we gain new knowledge, whether it against or

support our theory and hypotheses (KP8 – Key-person Interview, 1 November

2007).

253

A lecturer (FG1-5) expressed her satisfaction with both teaching and conducting

research. She elaborated:

Teaching and conducting research are two main tasks that satisfy me. When

my research outcomes could contribute anything to the others and my lectures

could guide my students to be a better person, I will be very happy (FG1-5 –



groups, it was clear that the nature of work was generally perceived as an influential

factor and giving significant implications that further leads to academics’ job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Apart from the general satisfactions and dissatisfactions findings, the study

also showed that there were three specific issues being spoken of by respondents

which were perceived as important measures on academics’ satisfaction with the

nature of work. These issues were the job itself, student factor, and the nature of

teaching and research.

Overall satisfaction and each of sub-issues on the nature of work were either

shared or differed based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among

interview respondents, especially between management people and academics in the

operational level. These were interesting and therefore had initiated two research


respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with the nature of work?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with the nature of work among


tenure incurrent university, and holding a management position or not?

254

6.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Nature of Work Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with the nature of work

in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Nature of Work Satisfaction’ adapted from

Spector (1997)’s JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate

academics’ satisfaction with the nature of work.

6.4.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with the Nature of Work


Responses for Question 34, the only negatively worded question to measure the

nature of work, were reverse-coded.

According to the results in the table below, strong results were shown in each

question, where tendency of answers selected by respondents skewed towards either

their agreements or disagreements. Based on Question 34, the majority of the

respondents disagree that they sometimes feel their job are meaningless (Mean= 3.82,

SD= 1.04).

Furthermore, based on Question 35, a very high number of respondents like

doing the things they do at work (f= 952, %= 88.3%). The majority of the respondents

agree that they felt a sense of pride in doing their jobs (Mean= 4.22, SD= 0.62). Most

of the respondents also thought that their jobs are enjoyable (Mean= 4.04, SD= 0.76).

Mainly, the responses for most of the questions on the nature of work provided a high

level of means which reflected a substantially high satisfaction among respondents on

this organisational antecedent.

255

Table 6.20: Frequencies and Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on the

Nature of Work Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 34# : I sometimes feel my job

is meaningless. (Mean= 3.82, SD=1.04)

29 2.7 134 12.4 122 11.3 505 46.8 288 26.7

Question 35: I like doing the things I

do at work. (Mean= 4.13, SD=6.83)

10 0.9 7 0.6 109 10.1 658 61.0 294 27.3

Question 36: I feel a sense of pride in

doing my job. (Mean=4.22, SD=0.62)

0 0.0 10 0.9 82 7.6 645 59.8 341 31.6

Question 37: My job is enjoyable.

(Mean= 4.04, SD=0.76) 0 0.0 36 3.3 181 16.8 562 52.1 299 27.7





to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with the nature of work. The result

shows that the quantitative study respondents had a high level of satisfaction with the

nature of work (Mean=4.06, SD=0.59). The findings of the quantitative study show

that academics were highly satisfied with the antecedent of the nature of work,

supporting the findings from the interviews in the qualitative analysis, where

academics were mostly satisfied with this organisational antecedent.

These findings do not support the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where he

found that university academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction

with the nature of work, specifically in teaching, research, and administration and

management. Also, the current study is contradicted with the findings of

Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) where university academics in

Bangladesh and Nigeria were dissatisfied with the nature of work at their universities.

256

6.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics by

Gender

Table 6.21 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with the nature of work

among academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant

difference in scores for male academics (Mean=4.10, SD=0.57) and female academics

[Mean=3.99, SD=0.60; t (1041)= 2.80, p<0.05]. Thus, it can be concluded that the

male academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of the nature of work

compared to female academics. This finding is different with the finding by Okpara et

al. (2005) in the USA, where they found that female employees were more satisfied

with the nature of work than male employees.

Table 6.21: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics

by Gender

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality

of variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Nature of

Work 4.10 0.57 3.99 0.60 0.03 0.87 1041 2.80 0.005**




6.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics by Age

Table 6.22 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with the nature of

work among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with the nature of

work among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=10.64, p<0.05].

257

Table 6.22: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work

among Academics by Age Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 14.58 4 3.64 10.64 0.00**


Total 324.62 909




the nature of work among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction was scored by those who were 56 and over (M=4.46,

SD=0.46), while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old

(M=3.95, SD=0.56). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that

academics aged 56 and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction

compared to those of 25 and under, 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No


The current study finding supports the finding of Okpara et al. (2005) where

they found that older academics in the United States colleges and universities have a

higher level of satisfaction with the nature of work than the younger academic groups.

Table 6.23: Post-Hoc Analysis for the Nature of Work among Academics

by Age Age Groups n Mean SD 25 & under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 & over

25 & under 47 4.05 0.64 -

26-35 442 3.95 0.56 NS -

36-45 255 4.07 0.62 NS * -

46-55 142 4.25 0.60 NS * * -

56 & over 24 4.46 0.46 * * * NS -



258


Tenure

Table 6.24 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with the nature of

work among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a


different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=10.98, p<0.05].

Table 6.24: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work



Between Groups 11.37 3 3.79 10.98 0.00**


Total 321.23 901




the nature of work among academics by tenure groups.

Table 6.25: Post-Hoc Analysis for the Nature of Work among Academics

by Tenure Tenure (years) n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 4.00 0.59 -

11-20 147 4.15 0.61 * -

21-30 29 4.53 0.53 * * -

31 & over 3 4.75 0.00 NS NS NS -



It is observed that the highest mean value of satisfaction scored by those who

have worked for 31 years and above (M=4.75, SD=0.00), while the lowest mean

scored by the group who have worked for 10 years and less (M=4.00, SD=0.59). Post-

hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics tenure between 21 to

30 years were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to those who

259

have worked between 11 to 20 years and 10 and under. No significant difference

existed between academics in any of the other groups of tenure.

Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) found no significant

difference of satisfaction with the nature of work among tenure groups of academics

in Bangladesh and Nigeria. Hence, the current study’s findings contribute to the

literature of satisfaction with the nature of work based on different tenure group.


Management Position

Table 6.26 below shows the t-test results for satisfaction with the nature of

work among academics by either holding management position or not.

Table 6.26: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics


Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Nature of

Work

4.05

0.62

4.04

0.57

5.48

0.02

927

0.35

0.72




t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for


do not hold a management position [M=4.05, SD=0.62; t (927)= 0.35, p=0.72]. Thus,

the conclusion is no significant difference of satisfaction in terms of the nature of

work between academics with and without management positions. The current study

finding opposes the outcomes of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where

260

employees were significantly less satisfied with nature of the job compared to senior

managers, middle managers, and first line managers in university hospitals in Iran.

6.4.4 Summary of Key Findings of the Nature of Work Satisfaction

As a summary, based on the findings of the interviews with key-persons and

academics in focus groups, most of the respondents were satisfied with the nature of

work. Three main issues related to the nature of work were the job itself, students’

factor, and nature of teaching and research.

In the quantitative study, respondents showed a high level of satisfaction with

the nature of work. This supports the same findings in the qualitative study where

most of the respondents were satisfied with the nature of work. Furthermore, the

quantitative findings do oppose the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where university

academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction with the nature of

work, specifically in teaching, research, and administration and management.

Also, the findings are different to the findings of Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011)

and Adekola (2012) where university academics in Bangladesh and Nigeria were

dissatisfied with the nature of work at their universities. While the other academics in

other countries displayed low to moderate level of satisfaction with the nature of

work, the current study’s finding reflects the unique culture of the workplace in the

Malaysian context. The specific issues occurred in the discussion among academics in

the qualitative study showed that Malaysian academics reflect the local culture that is

shared together among Malaysian academics.

For instance, in Malaysian culture, individualism is something that is not

welcomed in any workplace including in the higher educational setting (see Abu

Bakar, 1985, Arshad, 2007, and Ch’ng et al., 2010), hence, academics in the

Malaysian higher education institutions are keen to work collectively. The Ministry of

Higher Education also actively promotes the culture of working collectively, when

they offered greater amount of research grant for a group of academics working

together as compared to those doing research individually (see Ministry of Higher

Education, 2012).

Next, in regards to this job satisfaction antecedent, it was found that males

were more satisfied than females. This finding is different to the finding by Okpara et

261

al. (2005), where they found that female employees were more satisfied with the

nature of work than male employees.

Subsequently, older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones.

This finding supports the finding of Okpara et al.’s (2005) study among academics in

the United States of America’s colleges and universities. Senior academics were more

satisfied than juniors and this specific finding is different to those of Aktaruzzaman et

al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) where they found no significant difference of

satisfaction with the nature of work among different tenure groups of academics in

Bangladesh and Nigeria. The findings in regards to the demographic of age and tenure

reflect the reality that an academic will be more familiar with the nature of his work

when he gets older and experiences longer tenure with the workplace.

There was no significant difference of satisfaction between academics with

and without management position, and this opposes the finding of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) among employees in Iran. This may be due to the nature of

work in the university, that it is shared and experienced between both of the

academics with and without management position, and that each level of academics

feel the pressures of the changing context and heightened expectations similarly.

6.5 Communication

6.5.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Communication

In each of the interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a

question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with

communication. Table 6.27 presents this data.

Based on the findings in Table 6.27, different type of respondents’ interview

groups had given a unique responses based on their interview groups. All key-person

interviewees conveyed an answer of neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with the issue of

communication. All interviewees in Focus Group 2 also mentioned that they were

neither dissatisfied nor satisfied. On the other hand, all respondents in Focus Group 1

answered that they were dissatisfied with the aspect of communication.

262

Table 6.27: General Satisfaction with Communication


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied



KP4 -





Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Dissatisfied FG1-2 Dissatisfied

FG1-3 Dissatisfied

FG1-4 Dissatisfied

FG1-5 Dissatisfied

FG1-6 Dissatisfied

Focus Group

2




The findings reflect that communication was not a source of satisfaction at

workplace especially among academics in the operational level. Furthermore, all

academics in management level had responded that they were neither dissatisfied nor

satisfied with communication. This is a key finding in the qualitative study, and

therefore a further investigation should be undertaken to see whether or not at among

a bigger scale of respondents, the same findings will be evidenced.

6.5.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Related to Communication

Satisfaction

Apart from the interview respondents’ state of satisfaction with communication, some

of them had raised and initiated discussions on two specific issues that impacted on

their satisfaction with communication. Table 6.28 represents each of the issues of

satisfaction with communication, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-person

and focus groups. These issues were segregated based on keywords and key points of

satisfaction with communication.

263

Communication as a factor of job dissatisfaction has been initiated by only

two interview respondents in Focus Group 1 interview (FG1-2 and FG1-5) in the

current study. Their responses can be categorised into two main themes which were

poor communication and misunderstanding among academics and administration

staff.

264

Table 6.28: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with communication in the qualitative study



Communication KP 1

KP 2

KP 3

KP 4

KP 5

KP 6

KP 7

KP 8

FG 1-1

FG 1-2

FG 1-3

FG 1-4

FG 1-5

FG 1-6

FG 2-1

FG 2-2

FG 2-3

- Flow of communication

X

- Interpretation of communication

between academics &

administration staff X


265

6.5.2.1 Flow of Communication

A lecturer (FG1-5) expressed her dissatisfaction with what she described as ‘a

very poor flow of communication’ in her faculty and this was agreed by most of the

other respondents in the same focus group interview. Her (FG1-5) disappointment

was clearly demonstrated in her statement: ‘I am very disappointed with the poor

communication flow and dissemination of important information in this faculty’


(FG1-1, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6 agreed by saying yes…yes…yes…that’s right.)

She (FG1-5) continued:

‘For example, in this faculty it is a nature where lecturers always get very late

information on any important occasion or meeting. This condition will then

hassle us on our tasks and even will make us penalised by the university or

faculty because of our absenteeism upon any occasion. I think that this

incompetent style of information spreading from the people who are

responsible to handle it and the faculty administrator’ (FG1-5 – Focus Group


6.5.2.2 Interpretation of communication between academics and administration staff

A different perspective was voiced by a lecturer (respondent FG1-2), where

her dissatisfaction in terms of communication factor was more on the issue of

misunderstanding or misinterpretation among workers. Her dissatisfaction was

focused on the administration staff in her faculty:

‘I am so disappointed with the administration staff in the faculty. Let say,

when I ask for their help on preparing lecture documents, or teaching aids, or

asking for stationeries that I need to use for lectures… (She snapped her

fingers) automatically, they will think that I am directing them or my words

are too harsh…. This is nonsense! They misinterpreted me as being rude’


266

From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in the

focus groups, it was evidenced that communication was generally perceived as an

influential factor and giving significant implications that further leads to academics’

job satisfaction. The study showed that there was generally a moderate level of

satisfaction being argued of by most of the respondents in regards to communication

(see Table 6.27). In another sense, it cannot be ignored that there were also

dissatisfactions raised among academics in the operational level towards

communication where two respondents-each from management and operational level-

had explained their dissatisfaction. Another key finding based on the qualitative study

was none of the respondents were satisfied with the aspect of communication.

There were two specific issues in terms of communication satisfaction

initiated by two respondents. Even though these issues were raised by a very small

number of respondents in the interview, it was perceived as significant and vital

evidences to explain more on the aspect of communication.

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with

communication among academics in higher education had initiated two research


respondents:

1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with communication?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with communication among



6.5.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Communication Satisfaction

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with communication in

the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Communication Satisfaction’ was used in the

quantitative study in order to investigate academics’ satisfaction with communication.

Four items included in this measure were adapted from Spector (1997)’s JSS

questions which measure communication satisfaction.

267

6.5.3.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Communication


All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 39, 40 and 41) were reverse-coded.


Satisfaction with Communication (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 38: Communications seem

good with this

organisation. (Mean= 3.42, SD=0.94)

43 4.0 152 14.1 252 23.4 569 52.8 62 5.8

Question 39# : The goals of this

organisation are not

clear to me. (Mean= 3.36, SD=1.05)

54 5.0 223 20.7 175 16.2 537 49.8 89 8.3

Question 40# : I often feel that I do not

know what is going on

with the organisation. (Mean=3.24, SD=1.07)

62 5.8 244 22.6 223 20.7 466 43.2 83 7.7

Question 41# : Work assignments are

not fully explained. (Mean= 3.16, SD=1.11)

70 6.5 277 25.7 242 22.4 384 35.6 105 9.7




Respondents moderately agreed that communications seem good within their

organisations (Question 38; Mean= 3.42, SD= 0.94). They also moderately agree that

the goals of their organisations are clear to them (Question 39; Mean= 4.13, SD=

6.83). In Question 40, respondents mostly agreed that they feel that they know what is

going on with the organisation (f= 466, %= 43.2). Respondents also mostly agreed

that work assignments are fully explained to them (f= 384, %= 35.6).

Based on the findings in Table 6.29, a further analysis was undertaken to

investigate the overall level of satisfaction with communication. The result shows that

268

respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with communication (Mean=3.30,

SD=0.82). The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the

qualitative study that communication was a perceived as a moderate driver towards

job satisfaction of academics. The findings also reiterate the outcome of Rad and

Yarmohammadian (2006) where the employees in University Hospitals in Isfahan,

Iran have a moderate level of satisfaction with communication.


Gender

Table 6.30 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with communication among

academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in


[Mean=3.23, SD=0.79; t (1041)= 2.18, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that male

academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of communication compared to

female academics.

Table 6.30: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by

Gender

Variable


for equality

of variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Communication 3.34 0.86 3.23 0.79 3.68 0.06 1041 2.18 0.03**




Investigation on the relationship between communication satisfaction among

academics in a range of countries by various demographic variables have been done

by several researchers. For instance, Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) among university

academics in Bangladesh, Brown (2008) among academics in Northern Caribbean

University in Jamaica, and Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among academics in Malaysian

universities. The current study extends the past research studies by exploring the

269

differences of satisfaction with communication among different subgroups of gender,

age, tenure in organisation, and management position.

6.5.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by Age

Table 6.31: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Communication



Between Groups 16.72 4 4.18 6.07 0.00**


Total 639.54 909



Table 6.31 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with

communication among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that

there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with

communication among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=6.07, p<0.05].


communication among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of satisfaction scored by those who were between 46 and 55 years old (M=3.62,

SD=0.91), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 25 and under (M=3.22,

SD=0.61).


Academics by Age Age Groups

(years)

n Mean SD 25 & under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 & over

25 & under 47 3.22 0.61 -

26-35 442 3.24 0.80 NS -

36-45 255 3.23 0.87 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.62 0.91 * * * -

56 & over 24 3.30 0.73 NS NS NS NS -



270

Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics between

46 to 55 years old were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to

those of 25 and under, 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant

difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.


Tenure

Table 6.33 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with

communication among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that

there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among

the four different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=4.57, p<0.05].

Table 6.33: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Communication


Between Groups 9.56 3 3.19 4.57 0.003**


Total 636.12 901




communication among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction scored by those who have worked between 21 to 30 years

(M=3.68, SD=0.90), while the lowest mean scored by the group who have worked for

10 years and less (M=3.26, SD=0.83). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test

indicated that academics tenure between 21 to 30 years had significantly higher mean

of satisfaction compared to those who have worked between 11 to 20 years and 10

and under. No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other

groups of age.

271


Academics by Tenure Tenure (years) n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over

10 & under 723 3.26 0.83 -

11-20 147 3.46 0.87 * -

21-30 29 3.68 0.90 * NS -

31 & over 3 3.50 0.00 NS NS NS -




Management Position

Table 6.35 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with communication among

academics by either holding management position or not. t-test results indicated that

there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management

position (M=3.22, SD=0.85) and academics that do not hold a management position

[M=3.43, SD=0.80; t (927)= 3.78, p<0.05].

Table 6.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by

Management Position

Variable

Group

Levene’s test

for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Communication 3.43 0.80 3.22 0.85 1.42 0.23 927 3.78 0.00**




Thus, the conclusion is academics without management positions were

significantly more satisfied in terms of communication than academics with

management positions. This particular finding opposes the findings in the qualitative

272

study where most of the respondents in the operational level dissatisfied with

communication. The findings in the quantitative study also not reiterate the findings

of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees in the operational level were

significantly less satisfied with communication compared to senior managers, middle

managers, and first line managers.

6.5.4 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Communication

All in all, based on the findings of the qualitative study with key-persons and

academics in focus groups, most of the respondents were moderately satisfied with

the communication aspect. There were two main issues raised by the respondents in

accordance to their satisfaction with communication, which were poor communication

and misunderstanding among academics and administration staff.

In the next phase of study which was the quantitative study, respondents also

showed a moderate level of satisfaction with communication. These findings support

the outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006). Looking at the dissatisfactions and

issues shared by several interviewees in the qualitative study, it is understandable why

moderate level of communication satisfaction is the result. Poor flow of

communication and misinterpretation of messages between academics and the

administration staff was spoken of as a significant issues impeding job satisfaction

among academics. Spector (1997) asserts that communication in the organisation is a

critical aspect that should be carefully promoted and monitored in any organisation;

any occurrence of communication breakdown among the members in the

organisation, will influence the way how each person interact with each other and

how important information is shared among them. It will then influence the attitude

and behaviour of each person in the organisation, including the level of job

satisfaction.

Then, males were more satisfied with communication than females.

Evidenced in the qualitative study, most of female academics shared their

dissatisfaction with communication compared to the male academics. Subsequently

the quantitative study with a bigger scale of respondents, confirmed this pattern. In

regards with the Malaysian context, the current study finding reiterates the outcomes

of Alam and Mohammad (2010), Ch’ng et al. (2010) and Mohd Noor (2004), where

273

Malaysian male workers have a greater satisfaction with communication than female

workers. It may be because males are treated with higher levels of responsibility and

so are included in the communication flow and processes moreso.

Also, in the current study, it was found that older academics were more

satisfied than the younger counterparts, and senior academics were more satisfied than

juniors. Again, it can be said that when academics became older and had a longer

tenure in the university, they also may be included moreso that their junior

counterparts. In addition their maturity and understanding may have contributed to

their satisfaction as these academics regarded ‘conflicts in regards to communication’

to be something positive, rather than as a negative or hindrance and hence see it as a

source of creativity in doing their daily tasks at the workplace (Mohd Noor, 2004).


those with academic position. The current study’s finding seems to be different

compared to Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees in the operational

level were significantly less satisfied with communication compared to senior

managers, middle managers, and first line managers.

As mentioned in the preceding subsections, the current study extends the work

of Hunt and Saul (1975) by exploring the differences of satisfaction with

communication among different demographic subgroups of gender, age, tenure, and

management position. These findings regarded as a significant contribution towards

the body of knowledge in job satisfaction especially in research among academics in

Malaysian public higher education institutions.

6.6 Conclusion

This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with key-person and focus

groups in regard to satisfaction of organisational antecedents of operating condition,

co-workers, the nature of work, and communication. Secondly, the findings of the

qualitative study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study

pertaining to satisfaction of academics towards all organisational antecedents.

Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the

interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction with several of the

organisational antecedents. In each key issue discussed by the interview respondents,

some lead to satisfaction and some dissatisfaction.

274


there were differences of responses of each of the organisational antecedents by

respondents based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. They were

age, gender, tenure in current university and whether one holds a management

position or not. Summary for the findings on the investigated organisational

antecedents of job satisfaction in this chapter were depicted in Table 6.36 below.

275

Table 6.36: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents of operating Conditions, Co-Workers, the Nature of

Work and Communication

Organisational

Antecedent

Interview Findings

(n=17)

Survey Findings

(n=1078)

Overall

Satisfaction Arising Issues Overall

Satisfaction Gender Age Tenure Hold Management

Position or Not Operating

Conditions Mostly were


1. Dissatisfactions came from both

academics in management and in

operational level 2.Specific issues raised: - Facilities at workplace - Uninterrupted working conditions - Work responsibilities

Low (Mean= 2.51,

SD=0.82)

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with

operating

conditions

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

operating

conditions

Co-Workers Most were


1.Satisfaction was shared by both

groups of academics in management

and operational level 2. Some academics in the operational

level were dissatisfied 3. Specific issues raised: - Cooperation among colleagues - The nature of constructive

competition among colleagues


SD= 0.62)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with co-

workers

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with co-workers

276

The Nature of

Work Most of them

were satisfied (7 respondents)

followed by

some who were

neither

dissatisfied nor


1. Satisfactions came from both

academics in management and

operational level 2. Specific issues raised: - The job itself - Students’ factor - Nature of teaching and research

High (Mean= 4.06,

SD= 0.59)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

the nature of work

Communication Majority were

neither

dissatisfied nor


and the rest were


1. None of the respondents were

satisfied 2. All respondents in management

level were neither dissatisfied nor

satisfied 3. Dissatisfactions came from

academics in the operational level 4. Specific issues raised: - Poor communication - Misunderstanding among

academics and administration staff


SD= 0.82)

Males were

more

satisfied than

females

Older

academics were

more satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics without

management

position were more

satisfied


277

In summary, based on the results depicted in Table 6.36 there were several key

findings revealed in this chapter through the qualitative study and quantitative study.

Firstly, all of the investigated antecedents arising from the literature that led to

academics’ satisfaction were confirmed through the qualitative study. These were

then confirmed in the quantitative study as important considerations in satisfaction

with organisational antecedents.

Secondly, there were different type of ideas and issues identified by the

interview respondents on the antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, the

nature of work, and communication. Thirdly, academics in the qualitative study

generally have a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers and communication,

low satisfaction with operating condition, and high satisfaction with the nature of

work. Interestingly, academics in the quantitative study supported the findings from

the qualitative study.

Fourthly, some discussions and arguments spoken of by all interview

respondents differed based on several categories of demographic backgrounds. These

obviously differed among academics in management level versus academics in

operational level and between senior academics and junior academics. Further

investigations were undertaken in the quantitative study to reveal any differences in

satisfaction with all the organisational antecedents by different type of demographic

backgrounds.

Additionally, the selection of demographic backgrounds to be included in the

online study was based on the vast literature and past research. The specific results on

differences in satisfaction by different categories of age, gender, tenure and whether

one holds a management position or not, can be found in Table 6.36.

Next, Chapter 7 will discuss the satisfaction with work-life balance using the

findings of the qualitative study and quantitative study. Chapter 8 explores these

antecedents and their effects on academics overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave proposing a comprehensive model of interrelationships between all antecedents.

278

Chapter 7

SATISFACTION WITH WORK-LIFE BALANCE

7.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines satisfaction with work-life balance based on interviews with

key-persons and focus groups from three public universities in November and

December 2007. This chapter also details the findings of the quantitative study

completed by academics from three participating public universities between

November 2008 and March 2009.

The aims for the first part of this chapter were first, to understand respondents’

impressions and satisfaction with work-life balance through a qualitative method and

then to investigate differences based on respondents’ demographic backgrounds. The

aim for the second part - conducted through a quantitative method of data collection -

was to further investigate a bigger scale of respondents. The study also aims to

investigate differences in satisfaction with work-life balance among academics by

different type of demographic backgrounds.

Work-life balance satisfaction is an antecedent of academics’ job satisfaction

and this chapter focuses on and explores this antecedent. In the next chapters, the

study expands on this and tests the relationship between satisfaction with work-life

balance and consequent variables like overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave.

The chapter is structured in three sections. First, the general feelings of

satisfaction with the work-life balance of interview respondents are detailed.

Secondly, issues that are raised by all interview respondents regarding satisfaction

with work-life balance are elaborated. Section Three presents descriptive findings of

the quantitative study in regards to academics’ satisfaction with work-life balance.

The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 7.1 below:

279

Section

Description




study specifically on general satisfaction with the

work-life balance satisfaction.

The section describes the qualitative study findings

on several issues initiated related to satisfaction with

the government and universities policies and

support.

The section elaborates the findings of the

quantitative study.


qualitative study and quantitative study and

concludes the chapter.


7.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

Work-life balance has ‘important consequences for employee attitudes towards their

organisations as well as for the lives of employees’ (Scholarios & Marks, 2004:54).

Guest (2002:256) believes that ‘work-life balance influences the well-being and job

outcomes of employees at work such as job satisfaction’. Based on the

recommendations from past research, this chapter will investigate the state of work-

life balance satisfaction and its influence on academics’ job satisfaction.

This section describes the findings of the qualitative study pertaining to

general satisfaction of academics to work-life balance. In each of the interview

sessions, a question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with

work-life balance.

These answers were coded based on whether they spoke of these in terms of

satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; or no response was

given or it was unclear. Table 7.1 presents this data.

7.1 Introduction


General Satisfaction


Key issues pertaining to work-

life balance

7.4 Quantitative Study Findings

7.5 Conclusion

280

Table 7.1: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance


Responses

Key-person

KP1 Satisfied

KP2 Satisfied

KP3 Satisfied

KP4 -


KP6 Satisfied

KP7 Satisfied

KP8 Satisfied

Focus Group

1

FG1-1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied FG1-2 Dissatisfied

FG1-3 Dissatisfied




Focus Group

2




According to the findings in Table 7.1, after excluding KP4, six key-persons

(KP1, KP2, KP3, KP6, KP7, and KP8) mentioned that they were satisfied with the

work-life balance factor. Interestingly, none of the academics in focus groups

mentioned that they were satisfied with work-life balance, five of them (FG1-1, FG1-

4, FG1-5, FG2-1, and FG2-3) are neither dissatisfied nor satisfied and two are

dissatisfied (FG1-2 and FG1-3). The other two respondents gave an unclear or no

response at all.

In these particular interview findings, most of the management people

acknowledged that work-life balance is a source of satisfaction. On the other hand,

none of the respondents in focus groups who were at the operational level in their

universities responded that they were satisfied.

281

7.2.1 Satisfied Respondents

Six of the respondents answered that they were satisfied with the aspect and

policy of work-life balance practised by their universities (KP1, KP2, KP3, KP6, KP7

and KP8). A deputy provost of a university (KP7) for instance said that he is satisfied

with the issue of work-life balance. He further shared his own practice of balancing

between workplace’s needs and personal life’s needs:

I believe in the principle of ‘All work and no play make Jack a Dull Boy’.

Work and life must be balanced because I like to do my hobbies apart from my

daily job as a lecturer. There are some of us who love to work, do overtime

work and going back home also with a bundle of unfinished work. I love to

spend my time with family and enjoy outdoor activities like fishing, golfing,

travelling and so on. My wife and I will make sure that every year we will

bring our kids to travel anywhere. This balance between life and work is a

must not only for lecturers but also for all types of job. It will help in creating

job satisfaction (KP7 – Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

Another top level management person, a deputy vice chancellor (KP2) proudly shared

that he had successfully been juggling with the issue of work -life balance:

Between personal life and work, I don’t think I am prone to one of it and I am

still able to balance both factors and maintain my job satisfaction. Instead of a

good practice of work-life balance policy in a university, one also must be

clever enough to balance priority for both work and life’(KP2 – Key-person


A program coordinator (KP8) highlighted his satisfaction with the issue of work-life

balance when he said:

Lately, I always get home very late.... But I still can manage my family affairs

and I am so sure that I satisfied with my job. No negative feedback or

comments heard from my family members or from the university

management. The ultimate reason is ourselves, how we juggle both sides

(work and life) efficiently (KP8 – Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

282

7.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents

There were two respondents who mentioned that they were dissatisfied with

the aspect of work-life balance (FG1-2 and FG1-3). For instance, a female tutor (FG2-

1) argued:

If only I can have 34 hours in one day, I am sure I can be a better mum...(she

laughed, then sighed)... The reality is most of my time was spent for office

work. The dean (and university management) should have a look into the other

side of her staff members’ lives... we have families. But, what can I do, I am

only an ordinary staff... she is the boss (FG2-1 - Focus Group Interview, 25

October 2007).

Similarly, a female lecturer (FG1-2) expressed her dissatisfaction with the

practice of work life balance policy in her university:

How disappointed I was when there were several occasions that required us

(the academics) to come over to the office in the weekends just to finish

unimportant work! I still remember a couple of months ago, all of a sudden,

the faculty decided to have a house-keeping program on Saturday, and I have

no other choice rather than cancelling my family’s program! (She looked so

emotional when she spoke). Can we just have that program anytime in

weekdays? You (the faculty management) have five working days to choose

(rather than Saturday and Sunday)! (FG1-2 – Focus Group Interview, 26

October 2007).

These arguments are manifestations of general dissatisfactions towards the

issue of work-life balance among staff in the operational level. The tutor (FG2-1)

intrinsically stated her desire to give more focus towards her family, but she could not

do so because of the responsibilities she has at her workplace and towards her

superior- in her case, the dean.

However, she seemed to hide her dissatisfaction without showing any further

emotional statements. This was different with the female lecturer (FG1-2) who had

emotionally argued the relevance of attending her faculty occasion while she was

supposed to be with her family.

283

Interestingly the interviews revealed that respondents who were satisfied with

the aspect of work-life balance were those among the top management side.

Additionally, none of the academics in focus groups responded positively. It clearly

reflected that people who hold management position thought that they had a balance

of time and responsibilities between work and life, but most people at the operational

level in the universities thought the other way around.

Another vital finding was that the differences of work-life balance satisfaction

were not clearly portrayed between male and female academics. It seems to be related

to individual academic himself juggle between the needs of work and the needs of

personal life. This is in accordance to the mixed responses given among different

gender both in key-person interviews and focus group interviews.

Finally, work-life balance is clearly a pertinent issue which can affect

employees’ attitudes particularly job satisfaction. This was mentioned by a female

tutor (FG2-3) where ‘work and life have great impacts towards her job satisfaction’.

7. 3 Qualitative study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Work-Life Balance

Apart from the interview respondents’ general satisfaction with work-life balance,

they had also initiated discussions on several important issues that impacted on their

satisfaction in this dimension. These issues were working overtime and on weekends,

family support, and impact of work towards life and vice versa. These issues are

discussed in the next section of the chapter.

Table 7.2 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with work-life

balance spoken of and discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the

table, each interviewees’ response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is

represented by ‘X’ symbol.

As shown in Table 7.2, the issue of working overtime and on weekends had

been spoken of by five respondents in Focus Group 1. Only one key-person among

the management people talked on this issue. Eight key-persons and focus group

members mentioned and discussed the issue of family support. Discussions on the

issue of impacts of work towards life or vice versa caught the attention of five

interview respondents.

284

The next sub-sections draws together in-depth discussions among interview

respondents on each issue and highlights key information used to build survey

questions and hypotheses specifically on the satisfaction with work-life balance.

285

Table 7.2: Issues on academics’ satisfaction with work-life balance in the qualitative study



Work-Life Balance KP

1

KP

2

KP

3

KP

4

KP

5

KP

6

KP

7

KP

8

FG

1-1

FG

1-2

FG

1-3

FG

1-4

FG

1-5

FG

1-6

FG

2-1

FG

2-2

FG

2-3

1. Working overtime and on weekends X X X X X X

2. Family support

X X

X X X X

X

X

3. Impacts of work towards

life or vice versa X

X X

X X


286

7.3.1 Working overtime and on weekends

The top management level - via the statement of the deputy vice chancellor

(KP2) above - thought that the university provides a fair and satisfying work and life

balance policy. On the other hand, respondents who work in the operational level

(academic staff) tend to think differently. This is evidenced by the fact that almost all

respondents in Focus Group 1 Interview (except FG1-6) agreed that they are not

happy with the direction given by the management to work overtime and to work on

weekends. Their grievances were strongly expressed by respondent FG1-2:

For us the dissatisfaction is when the management asked to work on weekends.

It was a big problem for us, moreover if the direction was given at the last

minute. To work in the weekends will be a very big disturbance for me as a

housewife and a mother. I need to have some privacy or ample time to spend

with my family and have my personal good time. I am really dissatisfied with

this, seriously (FG1-2 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

Another lecturer (FG1-5) in the same focus-group interview session mentioned:

... I had enough of this! This (working on the weekends) happen every time

the university open for a new semester.. (she sighed). To some extent, I can

hear my kids sadly say “dear oh dear… mummy will be away again (on the

weekends)” (FG1-5 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

7.3.2 Family support

Several of the interview respondents (KP5, KP8, FG1-1, FG1-6, and FG2-3)

had raised the issue of family support where they believed it is vital for them in

balancing both work and family commitment.

A lecturer (FG1-1) argued:

Family support is a vital element for my career success… My responsibility is

equal between workplace and home. They (my family) must understand that I

am holding a huge responsibility to get enough money for all of us (FG1-1 –


287

A tutor (FG2-3) also expressed the same issue that family support is really important:

Problems at home like a fight between my husband and I should not be

brought up to my workplace. If we keep busy thinking of our family, our

house, our kids when we are working, it will be a great burden and make us

dissatisfied. We cannot focus on our lecture, our job. For me, family support

regarding on this (work and life balance) is very important and have a great

impact towards our job satisfaction… and life satisfaction as well (FG2-3 –


As evidenced from the responses pertaining to this issue, interview

respondents regarded that family support was a pertinent factor that leads towards

their satisfaction with work-life balance and further has a positive impact towards

their organisational attitudes specifically their job satisfaction.

7.3.3 Impacts of work towards life or vice versa

Some of the interview respondents also discussed the potential impact of one

dimension towards the other in the issue of work and life balance. The deputy vice

chancellor (KP2) asserted that:

If we are able to manage all our personal business and at the same time able to

contribute substantially towards our working organisations, I guarantee that

we will get a high level of job satisfaction.... take a good care of our family

and do our job at the workplace efficiently, it will maximise our job

satisfaction (KP2 – Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

KP2 further argued that he wanted to share vital guidance on attaining job satisfaction

by balancing both dimensions of work and life based on his own experience and also

based on the experiences of academic staff members in his university. He explained:

There are several prominent and quality academics we have here in this

university. As far as I concerned, they had a good approach of dividing their

attentions (responsibilities) towards the university and their own life (KP2 –

Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

288

The deputy provost of a university branch campus (KP7) argued extensively:

When somebody cannot afford himself to attend any university or academic

programs like a seminar or workshop and saying that he needs to focus more

on his family and personal business, it shows that he is unable to harmonise

and balance between his life and his job. If he wants to be excellent, he must

be able to do what other academics did in their career and at the same time be

able to fulfil their personal needs. For example, if an academic is focusing

more on his office work and pay no attention to his family‘s needs, this

reflects the dissatisfaction in terms of personal life. The same thing goes to a

person who is too concern about his personal life and could not complete most

of his responsibilities in workplace, this will affect his job satisfaction (KP7 –

Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).

Two respondents (FG1-2 and FG1-3) shared their dissatisfaction with their

incapability to balance between work and life. They admitted that there were some

negative impacts of one dimension towards the other one. Their views were depicted

as below:

Yes, work and life balance is a great issue in my life. You know, when we

have a family, we need to focus on them fully no matter what it takes. In my

case, I still can not balance between my job and my family equally. Always

think about home when I am in the office, and vice versa. I hate this feeling…


(He sighed)… It is not easy because I tend to mix up both (work and life). For

instance, one day I have been lectured by my superiors because of my

mistakes at workplace, I cannot help myself to be very moody when I came

back home. I scolded my kids for their little mistakes, being so harsh, lazy to

do anything, and so on (FG1-3 – Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).

The concerns of the academics in the operational level were more on their

inability to juggle between work and life. The researcher believes that this was

derived from the lack of guidance from the university and managerial people and

weaknesses of the implementation of the work-life balance policy, if there is any. For

instance, as mentioned by respondent FG1-3, his superiors ‘never try to discuss with

289

academic staff members on the issue of work-life balance, even though it is a critical

issue among academic staff’.

7.3.4 Expansion of Issues of Work-life Balance Satisfaction in the Qualitative

Study into the Quantitative study


groups, it was obvious that work-life balance was generally perceived as a key

antecedent of job satisfaction with significant implications. Apart from the general

satisfaction findings, the study also provided evidence that there were three key

findings being spoken of by respondents which were perceived as sources of

dissatisfaction in regards to work-life balance. These issues were working overtime

and on weekend, the importance of family support, and the impacts of work towards

life and vice versa.

General satisfaction with work-life balance and each of its sub-issues differed

based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among interview

respondents, particularly among academics with management positions and

academics in the operational level. These were key findings, and therefore, regarded

by the study as important dimensions of job satisfaction among academics. The

interview findings on work-life balance satisfaction then led to the next phase of data

collection- the quantitative study.

Findings in the qualitative study in regards to work-life balance satisfaction



1. What is the level of academics’ overall satisfaction with work-life balance?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with work-life balance among



290

7.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

This section describes the findings of academics’ satisfaction with work-life balance

in the quantitative study. The scale of ‘Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance’ was used

in the quantitative study to investigate academics’ satisfaction with work-life balance.

This study used modified versions of the Work and Life Policy instrument proposed

by Beehr et al. (1976) and Pare et al. (2000). This instrument was comprised of 6

items which were summed together to represent each respondent’s perception on their

work-life balance.




were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with work-life

balance by different demographic backgrounds.

7.4.1 Academics’ Overall Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

To determine the level of satisfaction with work-life balance among

respondents, frequencies and percentages of responses of all respondents from the

three participating public universities were calculated and the mean and the standard

deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 7.3 presents scores for each of

the six questions on work-life balance satisfaction responded by survey respondents.

All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 43, Question 45 and

Question 46) were reverse-coded. These negative-worded questions were remained

the same as what been included in the quantitative study in order to show the norms of

the original questions.

291

Table 7.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Satisfaction

with Work-Life Balance (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 42: Managers allow generally

enough time for the

completion of

projects/jobs so that

employees can do good

quality work with limited

stress. (Mean= 3.33, SD=0.97)

47 4.4 187 17.3 266 24.7 516 47.9 62 5.8

Question 43 #: I often feel like there is too

much work to do. (Mean= 2.50, SD=1.06)

167 15.5 485 45.0 179 16.6 217 20.1 30 2.8

Question 44: My organisation provides

work conditions (e.g.,

flexible schedules, child

care facilities) which take

into account the emergent

needs of employees. (Mean= 3.36, SD=1.01)

60 5.6 161 14.9 270 25.0 501 46.5 86 8.0

Question 45 #:

My work schedule is often

in conflict with my

personal life. (Mean=

3.23, SD=1.03)

52 4.8 246 22.8 261 24.2 441 40.9 78 7.2

Question 46 #: My job affects my role as

a spouse and/or a

parent.(e.g. not enough

time to spend with family,

bring office works home). (Mean= 3.08, SD=1.11)

100 9.3 266 24.7 222 20.6 429 39.8 61 5.7

Question 47 #: My work has negative

effects on my personal life. (Mean= 3.56, SD=1.11)

56 5.2 163 15.1 180 16.7 475 44.1 204 18.9





worded question.

292

According to the results in the table above, strong results were shown in each


their agreements or disagreements. Based on overall responses towards all questions,

more than half of the respondents agreed and agreed very much that their managers

generally allow enough time for the completion of projects or jobs so that they can do

good quality work with limited stress (f= 578, 53.7%). However most of the

respondents often felt that there is too much work for them to do (f= 652, 60.5%).

This was similar to the responses given to questions related to satisfaction with

operating conditions in Chapter 6, where academics were mostly having too much to

do at work. It could then affect academics’ time to spend on their personal activities.

This is evidenced by responses given by several interview respondents in the

qualitative study. For instance, KP7 and FG1-3’s arguments on impacts of work

towards life or vice versa (Section 7.3.3). Each of them was from the management

level (KP7) and operational level (FG1-3) had shared the same concern on the

inability of academics to juggle between work and life. They both believed that too

much attention given to one of the dimensions will create an imbalance focus on the

other one.

Next, respondents thought that their organisation provides work conditions

which take into account the emergent needs of employees (f=587, 54.5%). Most of

the respondents also agreed that their work schedule is not in conflict with their

personal lives (f= 519, 48.1%) and their job did not affect their role as a spouse and/or

a parent (f= 490, 45.5%). The findings were opposing the preceding findings, where

academics thought that there was too much work for them to do.

These findings were of interest and reflected that even though there were so

much work to do at the workplace, some of the academics believed that it will not

have any conflict with their personal lives and will not affect their pertinent role in

their family. Interestingly, in accordance to the last question after been reverse-coded

in the work-life balance satisfaction scale, most of the respondents agreed that their

work has positive effects on their personal lives (f= 679, 63%), even though they have

too many things to do at work.


undertaken to investigate the overall level of work-life balance satisfaction. The result

shows that respondents had a moderate level of overall satisfaction with work-life

balance (Mean=3.18, SD=0.65). These findings supported one of the outcomes of the

293

qualitative study where some academics were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with

the work-life balance aspect and provide evidence that this antecedent had a

substantial impact on academics’ job satisfaction (see Table 7.1). This particular

finding is also in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007), where they

found that their respondents were moderately satisfied towards work-life balance

policy.

Hence, based on the above findings on the general level of satisfaction upon

work-life balance among academics, it is interesting to investigate further any

differences in work-life balance satisfaction between specific demographic

backgrounds of academics according to different categories of gender, age, tenure and

holding management position or not.


Gender

Table 7.4 below shows the t-test results for differences in satisfaction with

work-life balance among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there

was a significant difference in scores for male and female academics (t (1041)= 2.21,

p=0.027). Male academics (M=3.22, SD=0.60) were slightly more satisfied with

work-life balance compared to female academics (M=3.13, SD=0.68). The result was

contradicted with the findings in qualitative study where work-life balance

satisfaction was not really different between male and female academics.

Huang et al.’s (2007) study on work-life balance only investigated the level of

work-life balance and its association with several consequence variables such as

organisational commitment and intention to leave without segregating the

respondents’ demographic into different gender. The current study extended past

research in the realm of gender differences in work-life balance satisfaction. The

findings also support Deery and Jago’s (2009) framework to examine work-life

balance in terms of putting gender as among the important elements in completing

their proposed work-life balance model.

294

Table 7.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics

by Gender

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Work-Life

Balance

3.22

0.60

3.13

0.68

6.88

0.01

1041

2.21

0.027**





Age

Table 7.5 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with work-life

balance among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a

statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with work-life

balance among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=4.178, p<0.05].

Table 7.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance



Between Groups 6.67 4 1.67 4.178 0.002**


Total 368.05 909




work-life balance among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest

mean value of satisfaction shown by the group of age of 56 and over (M=3.51,

295

SD=0.37), while the lowest mean scored by the age group of 36 to 45 years old

(M=3.13, SD=0.62).

Table 7.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance


Age Groups

(years) n Mean SD 25 &

under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over 25 & under

47 3.39 0.61 -

26-35

442 3.17 0.62 NS -

36-45

255 3.13 0.62 NS NS -

46-55

142 3.29 0.73 NS NS NS -

56 & over

24 3.51 0.37 NS NS * NS -




were 56 years old and over (M=3.51, SD=0.37) had a significantly higher level of



The case of associating different group of age with work-life balance is the

same as the findings of gender differences in the preceding sub-section. Huang et al.’s

(2007) study on work-life balance only investigated the level of work-life balance and

its association with several consequence variables such as organisational commitment

and intention to leave without segregating the respondents’ demographic into different

age group. The current study extended past research in the realm of age differences in

work-life balance satisfaction. The findings also support Deery and Jago’s (2009)

framework to examine work-life balance in terms of putting age as among the

important elements in completing their proposed work-life balance model.

296


Tenure

Table 7.7 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with work-life

balance among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there

was no statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with work-

life balance among the four different tenure groups [F(3, 905)=2.236, p=0.11].

Table 7.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance



Between Groups 2.50 3 0.83 2.236 0.11


Total 369.99 901



The findings reiterated the findings in qualitative study where there were no

differences between the senior and junior academics in terms of work-life balance

satisfaction.


Management Position

Table 7.8 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with work-life balance among

academics by either holding a management position or not holding a management

position. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores

for academics that hold a management position (M=3.21, SD=0.62) and academics

that do not hold a management position [M=3.17, SD=0.66; t (927)= -1.05, p=0.30].

297

Table 7.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics


Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Work-Life

Balance

3.17

0.66

3.21

0.62

1.46

0.23

927

-1.05

0.30




The results in the quantitative study were different to the findings in the

qualitative study. As revealed through the interviews with the key-person and the

focus groups, those who were satisfied with the aspect of work-life balance were

among the top management people while none of the academics without a

management position responded positively. Although quantitative findings showed no

significant differences between the two major groups of academics, from the

qualitative study, we still can hold to the premise that people who hold a management

position thought that they had a balance of time and responsibilities between work

and life, but most people at the operational level in the universities thought

differently.

7.5 Conclusion

This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with the key-person and the

focus groups in regards to work-life balance satisfaction. Secondly, the findings of the

qualitative study were then extended and compared with the findings in the

quantitative study pertaining to satisfaction of academics towards work-life balance.

Several key issues had been discussed thoroughly by the interview respondents apart

from their general satisfactions towards work-life balance. In each key issue, some led

to satisfaction and some to dissatisfaction.

298

Table 7.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

Work-Life

Balance

Interview Findings (n=17)

Survey Findings (n=1078)

Overall

Satisfaction Arising Issues

Overall Satisfaction

Gender Age Tenure Hold Management

Position or Not

6 respondents

were satisfied and

5 respondents

were neither

dissatisfied nor

satisfied

1. All of the satisfied

respondents were

those in the

management level

2. Most of the

respondents in the

operational level were

neither dissatisfied nor

satisfied, while two of

them were dissatisfied

3. Specific issues raised: - the issue of working overtime and on weekend - family support

Moderate

(Mean= 3.18,

SD= 0.65)

Males were more

satisfied than

females

Older academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference between seniors and juniors

No significant

difference between academics with and

without management

position


299


there were differences between responses of work-life balance satisfaction based on

different categories of demographics. Summary for the findings of satisfaction with

work-life balance were depicted in Table 7.9.

Several key findings were revealed in this chapter through both the qualitative

study and the quantitative study. Firstly, based on the interviews, all of the

management people accepted that work-life balance is a contributor towards their job

satisfaction. On the other hand, none of the respondents in the operational level

responded that they were satisfied with work-life balance and they were mostly

tended to show that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is related to the

changing nature of the people who were appointed for management position, where

they learned better on how to balance the time for their work and for their family.

Despite of having a lot of responsibilities at the workplace, they try very hard to win

the hearts of their beloved ones at home. Key-Person 2 and Key-Person 8 shared on

this previously, where their mutual concern is not on the quantity of time they could

spend for both workplace and personal life, but the quality of time they could spend

for both important life spectrums. Broers (2005) asserts this as challenging and has a

great impact on a person’s satisfaction in his job.

Secondly, three key factors that lead to academics satisfaction with work-life

balance were initiated and discussed by respondents in the qualitative study. The key

factors were working overtime and on weekend, the importance of family support,

and impacts of work towards life or vice versa. These were solely revealed in the

qualitative study and furthered through questions adapted and modified from past

research in the quantitative study as important considerations in satisfaction with

work-life balance.

Thirdly, evidenced by the responses in the qualitative study, most of the

academics in the operational level were dissatisfied with the issue of working

overtime and on weekend. Conversely, this was not a dissatisfying factor for

management people as argued by a key-person (KP8). Family support was regarded

as a vital source of work-life balance satisfaction and job satisfaction among both

respondents from the management group and the ordinary academics group. The issue

of impacts of work towards life or vice versa was regarded as a factor that contributes

towards dissatisfaction among several academics in the operational level, while

300

academics in the management level tended to give opinions on consequences and

benefits of having a good mechanism on balancing the influence of both dimensions-

work and life- toward each other.

Fourth, in certain demographic aspects, people kept comparing the disparity of

what they and others had obtained. This concern was not far different with what been

discussed in the preceding findings chapters (Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6),

where different academics with different demographic backgrounds tended to unveil

their dissatisfactions towards their counterparts in certain discussed antecedents and

issues.

Fifth, it is also worth noting that the result of the current study supports the

past works of Burke, Burgess and Oberrlaid (2004), Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne

(2007), and Virick et al. (2007) which indicate that work-life balance is correlated

positively with job satisfaction. Subsequently, based on the finding in the quantitative

study, academics were moderately satisfied with work life-balance. This particular

finding was in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007), where they found

that their respondents were moderately satisfied with work-life balance policy.

However, this particular finding was inconsistent with the outcomes of Premeaux et

al. (2007) and Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne (2007), where they found that their

respondents have a low level of satisfaction with work-life balance. This might be so

evidenced by the arguments of some academics in the qualitative study where they

feel uncomfortable with the way how they divide their focus towards their family and

the workplace (refer to Chapter 7, section 7.2.1 and section 7.2.2). The Ministry of

Higher Education from time to time implements the on-going improved key-

performance indicators (KPI) on academics especially those in the public higher

education institutions including the needs of involvement in more R&D activities,

articles published in ISI, SCOPUS or ERA journals, community engagement,

professional membership in any academic-related institute, and patented products and

services (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b). The requirement of such

KPI might be regarded by academics as a potential threat on their ability to balance

between work and life.

Sixth, according to the quantitative study findings, there were no significant

differences of satisfaction with work-life balance based on different tenure in the

current university and between academics with or without a management position.

However male academics have a significantly higher level of satisfaction than female

301

academics and older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger

ones. The finding related to different genders supports the findings of previous works

of Deery and Jago (2009) and Huang et al. (2007). In the current study, female

academics may feel the heavier burden on creating the balance between work and life.

Evidenced by the arguments by several female academics in the key-person and focus

group interviews in the qualitative study, females may be more concerned with the

family and personal life needs. When the university required them to fulfil more

stringent policies of working such as the implementation of new KPI, these female

academics will feel uncomfortable thinking of more times that should be sent for their

family, will be easily ‘robbed’ by doing things needed at the workplace.

In regards with the work-life balance satisfaction based on age, the current

study’s outcome can be predicted since older workers have a better experience and

skill to juggle between work and life. Older academics can easily adapt to the

difficulties or problems at the workplace. Evidenced by the older responses given in

the interviews, the respondents thought that any problems that occurred needed to be

treated as a challenge, and that itself could lead to job satisfaction.

Seventh, this chapter had showed that work-life balance is an important

antecedent of job satisfaction demonstrated by the development of several sub areas

explored and elaborated on from the interview responses which then brought into the

quantitative study questionnaire. It means that, together with the other antecedents of

job satisfaction discussed in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and

support), Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents), work-life balance is

another important antecedent which should be included in any study of job

satisfaction in the future. This was in accordance with a recommendation made by

Samad (2006), who found in her study that although work-life balance has a smaller

effect on job satisfaction as compared to family satisfaction, that the importance of the

effect on job satisfaction cannot be neglected.

Next Chapter 8 explores these antecedents and their effects on academics

overall job satisfaction and intention to leave proposing a comprehensive model of

interrelationships between all antecedents. Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the

research and concludes the research by listing out contributions of the research

towards theory, practice and methodology. The chapter also proposes

recommendations for future research.

302

Chapter 8

DESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS IN THE ONLINE SURVEY

8.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines descriptive and empirical findings in the online survey. This

chapter details several findings of the online survey completed by academics from

three participating public universities between November 2008 and March 2009.

The aims of this chapter were first, to understand respondents’ overall job

satisfaction and then to investigate its differences based on respondents’ demographic

backgrounds. Secondly, to identify the level of intention to leave among respondents

and further investigate its differences according to respondents’ demographic

backgrounds. Thirdly, the chapter aims to investigate the relationships between the

antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave. This

chapter also aims to investigate the mediation and moderation roles played by several

variables included in the study.

The chapter is structured in seven sections. First, findings pertaining to overall

job satisfaction are presented. It is followed by an elaboration on the findings of

intention to leave. Next, correlations and regression findings are detailed. The

outcomes of mediation and moderation analyses are also presented. The organisation

of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 8.1.

303

Section

Description



The section discusses specifically the findings on

overall job satisfaction.

The section discusses specifically the findings on

intention to leave.

The section elaborates findings related to correlations

and regression analyses.

The section provides details on mediation analysis.

The section provides details on moderation analyses.

The section summarizes key findings from the online

survey and concludes the chapter.


8.2 Level of Overall Job Satisfaction of Academics in Malaysian Higher

Education Institutions

In order to determine the level of overall job satisfaction among respondents,

frequencies and percentages of responses of all respondents from the three

participating public universities were calculated and mean and standard deviation

results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 8.1 presents scores for each of the six

questions on overall job satisfaction responded to by survey respondents. All

responses for negatively worded questions (Question 49, Question 51, Question 52,

and Question 53) were reverse-coded.

8.0 Introduction

8.1 Overall Job Satisfaction

Findings

8.3 Intention to Leave Findings

8.4 Correlations & Regression

Findings

8.5 Mediation Analysis

8.6 Moderation Analyses

8.7 Conclusion

304

Table 8.1 below depicts the findings of frequencies, percentages, and mean

value of overall job satisfaction.

Table 8.1: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Overall

Satisfaction (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 48: All in all, I am satisfied

with my job. (Mean= 3.88, SD=0.75)

9 0.8 51 4.7 168 15.6 683 63.4 167 15.5

Question 49# : In general, I don’t like

my job. (Mean= 3.76, SD=1.16)

78 7.2 116 10.8 74 6.9 528 49.0 282 26.2

Question 50: In general, I like

working here. (Mean= 3.95, SD=0.78)

17 1.6 26 2.4 182 16.9 627 58.2 226 21.0

Question 51#:

I often think of quitting the

organisation. (Mean= 3.52, SD=1.24)

91 8.4 151 14.0 209 19.4 359 33.3 268 24.9

Question 52 #: I think of searching for

another position with

another organisation. (Mean= 3.41, SD=1.26)

86 8.0 218 20.2 188 17.4 344 31.9 242 22.4

Question 53 #: I often thinking of leaving

the organisation within

the next year. (Mean= 3.62, SD=1.26)

94 8.7 132 12.2 181 16.8 353 32.7 318 29.5



5=agree very much. #= negatively worded question.

According to the results in the table above, strong results were shown in each


their agreements or disagreements. Based on overall responses towards all questions,

more than half of the respondents agreed and agreed very much that they are satisfied

with their job (Question 48, f= 850, 78.9%). In general, respondents do like their job

as an academic (Question 49, f= 810, 75.2%), and they like working in their

universities (Question 50, f= 853, 79.2%).

305

Furthermore, more than half of the respondents think of staying in the present

organisation (Question 51, f= 627, 58.2%), did not have any intention of searching for

another position with another organisation (Question 52, f= 586, 54.3%), and do not

think of leaving the organisation within the next year (Question 53, f= 671, 62.2%).

However, there were also a huge number of the respondents who responded

differently. About 242 respondents (22.4%) agreed and agreed very much that they

often think of quitting the organisation, 304 (28.2%) think of searching for another

position with another organisation, and 226 (20.9%) often thinking of leaving the

organisation within the next year. These findings are important in indicating that even

though the majority of the academics show the tendency of having a good level of job

satisfaction, there were also some of them who thought the other way around with an

intention of leaving to find ‘happiness’ and satisfaction in working with other

organisations.

In accordance with the findings presented in Table 8.1, a further analysis was

undertaken to investigate the overall level of job satisfaction based on the sum of all

questions that measure job satisfaction. The result shows that respondents had a high

level of overall job satisfaction (M=3.69, SD=0.85). This finding is similar to the

findings of Toker (2011), Castiglia (2006), Callister (2006), Goff (2004), Newby

(1999), and Oshagbemi (1997). This particular finding is in contrast with the findings

of Akpofure et al. (2006) who found that higher education academics were highly

dissatisfied with their job, and the findings of Küskü (2003) in Turkey and Bilimoria

et al. (2006) in the USA where university academics have a moderate level of job

satisfaction. The finding is also not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff

(2009) where they found that academics in a Malaysian university were moderately

satisfied with their job.

8.2.1 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender

Table 8.2 shows the t-test results for overall job satisfaction among academics

by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean

scores for male academics (M=3.77, SD=0.86) and female academics [M=3.58,

SD=0.83; t (1041)=3.647, p<0.05].

306

Table 8.2: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender

Variable


for equality

of variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Overall Job

Satisfaction

3.77

0.86

3.58

0.83

0.64

0.42

1041

3.647

0.00**




Thus, we can conclude that the study found that male academics had a

significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared to their female counterparts.

This finding contrasts to Newby’s (1999) finding on academics in the USA,

Oshagbemi’s (2000) on academics in the UK, and Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009)

finding on employees in small and medium enterprises in Australia, where females

reported higher job satisfaction than males.

Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff

(2009). In their study among academic staff in a Malaysian university, they found that

there were no significant differences between male and female academics with regard

to overall job satisfaction, and they conclude that ‘overall job satisfaction does not

increase as a function of gender’ (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009:124).

8.2.2 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age

Table 8.3 below shows the ANOVA results for overall job satisfaction among


significant difference in overall job satisfaction among the five different age groups

[F(4, 905)=2.571, p<0.05].

307


Academics by Age


Between Groups 7.42 4 1.85 2.571 0.037**


Total 660.14 909



Table 8.4 below shows the results of post-hoc analysis for overall job

satisfaction among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean

value of job satisfaction was shown by the group of age of 56 and over (M=3.90,

SD=1.10), while the lowest mean was scored by the age group of 26 to 35 years old

(M=3.61, SD=0.78).

Table 8.4: Post-Hoc Analysis for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age Age Groups

(years)

n Mean SD 25 &

under

26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

over

25 & under 47 3.62 0.82 -

26-35 442 3.61 0.78 NS -

36-45 255 3.72 0.89 NS NS -

46-55 142 3.85 0.95 NS * NS -

56 & over 24 3.90 1.10 NS NS NS NS -



Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics between

46 to 55 years old (M=3.85, SD=0.95) had a significantly higher level of overall job



Hence, older academics have a higher level of overall job satisfaction than their

younger counterparts.

This study’s finding compares very favourably with the findings of Newby

(1999) among respondents in the USA, Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among university

academics in Malaysia, and Toker (2011), where older academics were significantly

more satisfied than the younger ones. Conversely, the current study’s finding is

308

inconsistent with Akpofure’s (2006) finding, where Akpofure found that academics in

Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older.

This study’s finding also differs to the finding of Tu et al. (2005), where they

found that there was no statistically significant difference in term of age for full-time

Taiwanese and Chinese academics at higher education in overall job satisfaction.

8.2.3 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Tenure

Table 8.5 below shows the ANOVA results for overall job satisfaction among

academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically

significant difference in overall job satisfaction among the five different tenure groups

[F(4, 898)=2.236, p=0.083]. This is contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi

(2000) among university academics in the UK and Toker (2011) among a university

academics in Turkey, where they found significant differences of satisfaction among

different tenure groups in their studies respectively.


Academics by Tenure


Between Groups 4.79 4 1.60 2.236 0.083


Total 645.73 901



8.2.4 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Management

Position

Table 8.6 shows the t-test results for overall job satisfaction among academics

by holding a management position or not holding a management position. The t-test

results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean scores for academics

without management position (M=3.80, SD=0.83) and academics with management

position [M=3.62, SD=0.85; t (927)= 3.18, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that

309

academics without a management position had a significantly higher overall job

satisfaction compared to their counterparts.


Management Position

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Overall Job

Satisfaction

3.80 0.83 3.62 0.85 0.368 0.54 927 3.18 0.00**




This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and Verdin (1983), who found

that employees without supervisory responsibility have a higher job satisfaction than

those with supervisory responsibility. Conversely, Ranz et al. (2001) in their study

among psychiatrists in New York found that psychiatrists in management positions

experience significantly higher job satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This

study’s finding are also dissimilar with the one of Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009),

where non-managerial employees of small and medium enterprises in Australia

reported lower levels of job satisfaction than managers.

8.3 Level of Intention to Leave of Academics in Malaysian Higher Education

Institutions

This section attempts to explain the findings related to the level of intention to leave

among the online survey respondents. Frequencies and percentages of responses of all

respondents from the three participating public universities were calculated and means

and standard deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 8.7 presents scores

for each of the three questions on intention to leave as responded by survey

310

respondents. Negatively worded questions (Question 73 and Question 74) were

reverse-coded.

Table 8.7: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean of Intention to Leave (N=1078)


1 2 3 4 5

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Question 54:

I think of staying in the

current workplace. (Mean= 2.48, SD=1.23)

91 8.4 151 14.0 209 19.4 359 33.3 268 24.9

Question 55 #: I think of searching for

any job with any other

organisation (Mean= 2.59, SD=1.26)

86 8.0 218 20.2 188 17.4 344 31.9 242 22.4

Question 56 #: I often thinking of leaving

the organisation within

the next year. (Mean= 2.38, SD=1.26)

94 8.7 132 12.2 181 16.8 353 32.7 318 29.5



5=agree very much. #= negatively worded question.

Based on the findings shown in Table 8.7, more than half of the respondents

thought of staying in the current workplace (Question 72, f= 567, 58.2%).

Furthermore, according to the reverse-coded responses for Question 73 and Question

74, over half of the respondents do not think of finding another job with any other

organisation (f= 586, 54.3%) nor think of leaving the organisation within the next

year (f=671, 62.2%).


undertaken to investigate the level of intention to leave based on the sum of all

questions that measure intention to leave. The result shows that respondents had a low

level of intention to leave the organisation (M=2.48, SD=1.17). This finding is in

accordance to those of Roberts and Chonko (1994), Barrett and Yates (2002),

Nasurdin, Ramayah and Hemdi (2005), and Ng and Sorensen (2008), where the level

of intention to leave was low among their respondents. On the contrary, this particular

finding opposes the work of Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) who found a moderate

level of intention to leave among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia,

311

and high level of intention to leave in Huang, Lawler and Lei’s (2007) study among

auditors in public accounting firms in Taiwan.

8.3.1 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender

Table 8.8 shows the t-test results for intention to leave among academics by

gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean

scores for male academics (M=2.39, SD=1.24) and female academics [M=2.60,

SD=1.11; t (1041)= -2.95, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that female academics

have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male counterparts.

Table 8.8: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender

Variable


for equality

of variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Male (n=533)

Female

(n=510)


Intention to

Leave 2.39 1.24 2.60 1.11 6.10 0.01 1041 -2.95 0.00**




This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts & Chonko (1994), where female

academics were found to have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to

their male counterparts. However, this finding is different to Villanueva and

Djurkovic’s (2009) study among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia

where they found that there was no effect based on different gender on the intention to

leave.

8.3.2 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Age

Table 8.9 below shows the ANOVA results for intention to leave among

academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically

312

significant difference in intention to leave among the five different age groups [F(4,

905)=1.88, p=0.11]. Hence, it can be concluded that there is no difference in

intention to leave among academics in different age groups. This finding is opposite

to the finding of Huang et al. (2007) among auditors in Taiwanese public accounting

firms, where they found significant difference in intention to leave among different

age categories.

Table 8.9: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among Academics

by Age Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 10.38 4 2.60 1.879 0.11


Total 1260.60 909



8.3.3 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Tenure

Table 8.10 below shows the ANOVA results for intention to leave among academics

by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically significant

difference in intention to leave among the four different tenure groups [F(3,

898)=1.11, p=0.35]. Hence we can say that intention to leave is not influenced by

different level of tenure in the university among academics.

Table 8.10: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among Academics

by Tenure Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 4.50 3 1.50 1.11 0.35


Total 1221.27 901



313

8.3.4 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Management

Position

Table 8.11 shows the t-test results for intention to leave among academics by

holding a management position or not holding a management position. The t-test

results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean scores for academics

with a management position (M=2.60, SD=1.19) and academics without a

management position [M=2.33, SD=1.13; t (927)=-3.058, p<0.05]. Even though both

groups of academics scored a low level of intention to leave, this finding led to the

conclusion that academics without a management position had a significantly higher

intention to leave than academics with a management position.

This finding supports the findings in past research where ‘workers in

operational level have higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers’

(Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009: 129).

Table 8.11: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Management

Position

Variable


for equality of

variance

df

t-test for

equality

of

means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Do not hold a

management

position (n=376)

Hold a

management

position

(n=553)


Intention to

Leave

2.60 1.13 2.33 1.19 2.14 0.14 927 -3.058 0.00**




8.4 Correlations Findings

As described in Chapter 3 previously, correlation analysis is essential in determining

the direction and the strength of the relationship between two variables (Hair et al.,

2010; Konting, 1993; Mohd Noor, 2004; Pallant, 2011). Table 8.12 describes the

correlation findings for the relationships measured.

314

Table 8.12: Bivariate Correlations between All Variables of the Study

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Government & Universities Policies & Support 1

2. Pay .353** 1

3. Promotion .333** .471

** 1

4. Supervision .344** .233

** .417** 1

5. Fringe Benefits .342** .553

** .427** .275

** 1

6. Contingent Rewards .437** .481

** .543** .548

** .456** 1

7. Operating Conditions .135** .302

** .131** .025 .294

** .233** 1

8. Co-Workers .270** .316

** .274** .382

** .245** .451

** .163** 1

9. Nature of Work .268** .239

** .314** .304

** .264** .331

** .124** .398

** 1

10. Communication .361** .402

** .417** .539

** .326** .608

** .112** .502

** .295** 1

11. Work-Life Balance .408** .384

** .300** .348

** .440** .461

** .412** .342

** .322** .395

** 1

12. Overall Job Satisfaction .489** .322

** .319** .533

** .265** .593

** .062* .475

** .423** .617

** .432** 1

13. Intention to Leave -.433** -.290

** -.258** -.469

** -.232** -.560

** -.070* -.423

** -.303** -.574

** -.376** -.960

** 1

Note: The number of missing cases based on pairwise deletion ranged from 0 to 203. *p ≤ 0.05. **p ≤ 0.01

341

8.4.1 The relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall

job satisfaction

According to the correlation result in Table 8.12, there were positive and linear

relationships and coefficient correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction

with overall job satisfaction. These imply that when an antecedent of job satisfaction

is increased, overall job satisfaction is also increased. This particular findings were in

accordance with the findings in several past research studies (see Akpofure et al.,

2006; Barret & Yates, 2002; Donnelly, 2006, Koustelios, 2001; Mohd Noor, 2004;

Spector, 1997).

From the result shown in Table 8.12, it can be explained that government and

universities policies and support (r= .49, p<0.01), supervision (r= .53, p<0.01),

contingent rewards (r= .59, p<0.01), co-workers (r= .48, p<0.01), nature of work (r=

.42, p<0.01), communication (r= .62, p<0.01), and work-life balance (r=.43, p<0.01)

had positive and moderate relationships with overall job satisfaction. Pay (r= .32,

p<0.01), promotion (r= .32, p<0.01), and fringe benefits (r= .26, p<0.01) had positive

and low correlations with overall job satisfaction. Of all, albeit of its moderate level of

relationship with overall job satisfaction, contingent rewards showed the strongest

level of correlation in regards to its relationship with job satisfaction.

Subsequently, operating conditions showed the weakest strength of positive

and linear correlation in the relationship with overall job satisfaction (r= .06, p<0.05).

This weak relationship between operating conditions with overall job satisfaction is

considered as almost negligible relationship according to Guilford’s rule of thumb as

explained in Chapter 3 (page 90).


intention to leave

Based on the result in Table 8.12, there were negative and linear relationships

and coefficient correlations between all job satisfaction antecedents with intention to

leave. These imply that when an antecedent of job satisfaction increases, intention to

leave decreases.

From the result shown in Table 8.12, it can be explained that government and

universities policies and support (r= -.43, p<0.01), supervision (r= -.47, p<0.01),

342

contingent rewards (r= -.56, p<0.01), co-workers (r= -.42, p<0.01), and

communication (r= -.57, p<0.01), had negative and moderate relationships with

intention to leave the organisation. Pay (r= -.29, p<0.01), promotion (r= -.26, p<0.01),

fringe benefits (r= -.23, p<0.01), nature of work (r= -.30, p<0.01), and work-life

balance (r= -.38, p<0.01), had negative and low correlations with intention to leave.

Based on these findings, communication showed the highest strength in regards to the

correlation with intention to leave. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength

of negative and linear correlation in the relationship with intention to leave (r= -.07,

p<0.05). Again, similar to the correlation findings with overall job satisfaction, this

weak relationship between operating conditions with intention to leave the

organisation is considered as almost a negligible relationship according to Guilford’s

rule of thumb.

8.4.3 The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave

According to the correlation result in Table 8.12, there was a negative and

very high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave

(r= -.96, p<0.05). This is considered as a very dependable relationship based on

Guilford’s rule of thumb as explained earlier in Chapter 3. This finding particularly

supports the findings in Youngcourt’s (2005) study among employed students in a

university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.’s (1995) longitudinal study among registered

nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA, and Falkenburg and Schyns’s (2007)

comparative study among electronic plants’ employees in Netherland and Slovakia,

where they found job satisfaction negatively correlated with intention to leave the

organisation.

8.5 Mediation Analysis

Multiple regression method is also used to measure the effect of a mediator on

the relationship between independent and dependent variables of the study. In this

study, job satisfaction is implemented as a mediator variable between the antecedents

of job satisfaction and intention to leave. Research Question 8: ‘Does overall job

satisfaction mediate the relationships between each of the antecedents of job

343

satisfaction with intention to leave?’ is answered through eleven hypotheses, H8(a) to

H8(k). These hypotheses were tested using mediation analysis as follows:

8.5.1. Hypothesis 8(a)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(a) that government and universities’ policy

satisfaction (GUPS) and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall

job satisfaction (OJS).

The findings of the mediation analysis conducted using the causal steps

outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(a) are as follows. GUPS was

significantly predicted ITL = -0.57, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed

to investigate the involvement of OJS as a possible mediator of the relationship

between GUPS and ITL. GUPS was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( =

0.94, p < 0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for GUPS and OJS when

used simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.05, p < 0.05 and = -

0.68, p < 0.05).

Based on the analysis, the first three conditions were met. Subsequently, the

unstandardised regression coefficients for GUP and OJS when used simultaneously to

predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in

establishing mediation, OJS mediates partially the relationship between GUP and ITL.

In order to assess for the significance of a mediation effect of OJS in the

relationships between GUP and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of ZZ was

used. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the

product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the mediation

relationship of GUP-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of P=

ZZindicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between GUP and

ITL (P = -1870.25, p < 0.05).

Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test, therefore, overall job

satisfaction significantly and partially mediates the relationship between government

and university policy satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(a) is therefore

supported.

344

8.5.2. Hypothesis 8(b)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(b) that pay satisfaction (PAY) and intention to

leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(b) are as follows. PAY was

significantly predicted ITL ( = -0.25, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed

to investigate the involvement of OJS as possible mediator of the relationship between

PAY and ITL. PAY was found to significantly predict OJS ( = 0.40, p < 0.05). The

unstandardised regression coefficient for PAY and OJS when used simultaneously to

predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.02, p < 0.05 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).


unstandardised regression coefficients for PAY and OJS when used simultaneously to


establishing mediation, OJS mediates partially the relationship between PAY and ITL.


relationships between PAY and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ

was used. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution

of the product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the

mediation relationship of PAY-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test

of ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between PAY and

ITL (P = -1200.12, p < 0.05).

Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test findings, therefore,

overall job satisfaction significantly and partially mediates the relationship between

pay satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(b) is therefore supported.

8.5.3. Hypothesis 8(c)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(c) that promotion satisfaction (PROMO) and

intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(c) are as follows. PROMO was



PROMO and ITL. PROMO was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.57, p <

345

0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for PROMO and OJS when used

simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.07, p < 0.05 and = -0.68, p

< 0.05).


unstandardised regression coefficients for PROMO and OJS when used

simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s

(1986) steps in establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the

relationship between PROMO and ITL.


relationships between PROMO and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P =

ZZ. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of

the product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the mediation

relationship of PROMO-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of

ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between PROMO and

ITL (P = -1216.46, p < 0.05).



promotion satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(c) is therefore supported.

8.5.4. Hypothesis 8(d)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(d) that supervision satisfaction (SV) and



outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis (d) are as follows. SV was



SV and ITL. SV was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.86, p < 0.05). The

unstandardised regression coefficient for SV and OJS when used simultaneously to



unstandardised regression coefficients for SV and OJS when used simultaneously to


346

establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the relationship between

SV and ITL.


relationships between SV and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.

The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the


relationship of SV-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between SV and ITL (P = -

2071.72, p < 0.05).



supervision satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(d) is therefore supported.

8.5.5. Hypothesis 8(e)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(e) that fringe benefits satisfaction (FB) and



outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(e) are as follows. FB was



FB and ITL. FB was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.45, p < 0.05). The

unstandardised regression coefficient for FB and OJS when used simultaneously to



unstandardised regression coefficients for FB and OJS when used simultaneously to


establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the relationship between FB

and ITL.


relationships between FB and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.



347

relationship of FB -OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between FB and ITL (P =

-991.16, p < 0.05).



fringe benefits satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(e) is therefore

supported.

8.5.6. Hypothesis 8(f)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(f) that contingent rewards satisfaction (CR)

and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction

(OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(f) are as follows. CR was



CR and ITL. CR was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.96, p < 0.05). The

unstandardised regression coefficient for CR and OJS when used simultaneously to

predict ITL are not both significant ( = 0.02, p = 0.17 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).

Based on the analysis, all four conditions were met. The unstandardised

regression coefficients for CR and OJS when used simultaneously to predict ITL are

not both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in establishing

mediation, as a result, OJS mediates fully the relationship between CR and ITL.


relationships between CR and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.



relationship of CR-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between CR and ITL (P =

-2212.88, p < 0.05). Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test findings,

therefore, overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationship

between contingent rewards satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(f) is

therefore rejected.

348

8.5.7. Hypothesis 8(g)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(g) that operating conditions satisfaction (OP)


(OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(g) are as follows. OP was

significantly predicted ITL ( = 0.08, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed to

investigate the involvement of OJS as possible mediator of the relationship between

OP and ITL. OP was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.10, p < 0.05). The

unstandardised regression coefficient for OP and OJS when used simultaneously to

predict ITL are not both significant ( = 0.01, p = 0.21 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).

Based on the analysis, all four conditions were met. The unstandardised

regression coefficients for OP and OJS when used simultaneously to predict ITL are

not both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in establishing

mediation, as a result, OJS mediates fully the relationship between OP and ITL.


relationships between OP and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.



relationship of OP-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between OP and ITL (P =

228.51, p < 0.05).


overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationship between

operating conditions satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(g) is therefore

rejected.

8.5.8. Hypothesis 8(h)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(h) that co-workers satisfaction (CW) and



outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(h) are as follows. CW was

349



CW and ITL. CW was found to be significantly predicted OJS (= 0.97, p < 0.05).

The unstandardised regression coefficient for CW and OJS when used simultaneously

to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.06, p <0.05 and = -0.68, p < 0.05).

Based on the analysis, all three conditions were met. Subsequently, the

unstandardised regression coefficients for CW and OJS when used simultaneously to



CW and ITL.


relationships between CW and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.



relationship of CW-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between CW and ITL (P =

1808.52, p < 0.05).



co-workers satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(h) is therefore supported.

8.5.9. Hypothesis 8(i)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(i) that nature of work satisfaction (NOW) and



outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(i) are as follows. NOW was



NOW and ITL. NOW was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.91, p <

0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for NOW and OJS when used

simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.19, p <0.05 and = -0.70, p

< 0.05).

350


unstandardised regression coefficients for NOW and OJS when used simultaneously

to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in


NOW and ITL.


relationships between NOW and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P =



relationship of NOW-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between NOW and ITL (P =

1810.20, p < 0.05).



nature of work satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(i) is therefore

supported.

8.5.10. Hypothesis 8(j)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(j) that communication satisfaction (COMM)


(OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(j) are as follows. COMM was



COMM and ITL. COMM was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.95, p <

0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for COMM and OJS when used


< 0.05).


unstandardised regression coefficients for COMM and OJS when used simultaneously

to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in

351


COMM and ITL.


relationships between COMM and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P =



relationship of COMM-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of

ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between COMM and

ITL (P = 2331.33, p < 0.05).



communication satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(j) is therefore

supported.

8.5.11. Hypothesis 8(k)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(k) that work-life balance satisfaction (WLB)


(OJS).


outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(k) are as follows. WLB was



WLB and ITL. WLB was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.57, p < 0.05).

The unstandardised regression coefficient for WLB and OJS when used


< 0.05).


unstandardised regression coefficients for WLB and OJS when used simultaneously to



WLB and ITL.


relationships between WLB and ITL, MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) method of P = ZZ.

352



relationship of WLB-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) test of ZZ

indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between WLB and ITL (P =

1653.85, p < 0.05).



work-life balance satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(k) is therefore

supported.

8.5.12 Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings

All in all, there were nine relationships between the antecedents of job

satisfaction with intention to leave significantly but partially mediated by overall job

satisfaction. These antecedents of job satisfaction were government and universities

policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-workers, nature

of work, communication, and work-life balance. In contrast, there were only two

relationships between antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave

significantly and fully mediated by overall job satisfaction. These antecedents of job

satisfaction were contingent rewards and operating conditions. Figure 8.2 depicts the

summary of the mediation analysis findings. Differences between partial and full

mediation were explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2.2, pp 91-95).

Since there is still no study initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the

mediation role of job satisfaction, the current study’s findings of mediation analysis

provides new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable

between the antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence variable of job

satisfaction which is intention to leave.

353

Figure 8.2: Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings

8.6 Moderation Analysis

This section deals with research question 9: ‘Do demographic backgrounds fully

moderate the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave?’.

To answer the question, there are three equations tested using hierarchical regression

analysis, to be considered and compared to identify the interaction or changes effect

of moderator variable on the relationships occur between independent variables and

dependent variable. As elaborated in Chapter 3, the equation forms a model of

hierarchical regression as follows:

Significantly & fully mediates

Significantly & partially mediates

1. Government &

Universities Policies

and Support

2. Pay

3. Promotion

4. Supervision

5. Fringe Benefits

6. Co-Workers

7. Nature of Work

8. Communication

9. Work-Life Balance

Intention

to

Leave

Overall Job

Satisfaction

1. Contingent Rewards

2. Operating Conditions

Overall Job

Satisfaction

Intention

to

Leave

354

Equation 1 (Original Model) = Y = a + b1X

Equation 2 (Limited Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z

Equation 3 (Full Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + d1XZ

where:

Y = The dependent variable (KS practices)

X = The independent variable (i.e. technology)

Z = The moderator variable (KS awareness)

XZ = The multiplier of the independent variable with the moderator

variable.

a = Constant Value for the Y variable

b, c, and d = The regression coefficients for independent variable

e = Standard error of the estimate

The coefficient of R2 value obtained from the statistical analysis is used to

determine whether the moderator effect is significant and estimates the moderated

relationship. If the changes in R2

(ΔR2) is statistically significant, then a significant

moderator effect is present (Frazier et al.; Hair, et al.,2004; Kenny, 2009). In other

words, the demographic backgrounds impact on the relationship between independent

variables, for instance job satisfaction with intention to leave, when ΔR2 value at the

full model is significant. Otherwise, the moderator variable will only act as an

estimator towards dependant variable.

Four assumptions or hypotheses are further developed separately from the

above question as follow:

Hypothesis 9(a): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention

to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of age

Hypothesis 9(b): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention

to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of gender

Hypothesis 9(c): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention

to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of tenure

Hypothesis 9(d): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention

to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of holding

managerial position

355

8.6.1 The Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job


This section answers the question of whether or not age moderates the relationship

between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian

Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the assumption below:

Hypothesis 9(a): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of age

Table 8.13 shows the result of the three equations of original, limited and full

model through the hierarchical regression analysis. The results for original equation

model is (R2= 1.134, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R

2= 0.064, p < 0.05) and full

equation model (R2= 0.024, p=0.39). The findings indicate that there is no significant

effect of OJSage variable towards the relationship between overall job satisfaction

and intention to leave. Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and

intention to leave is not moderated by age.

Table 8.13: Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction

and Intention to Leave

Model

Intention to Leave

intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction + e

intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction +

c1age+ e


c1age+ d1OJSage* + e

R2

ΔR2 Sig

1.134**

.064**

.024

.967**

.024**

.010

.000

.011

.386

**Note: significance level of p < 0.05

* OJSage = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and age variable

356

8.6.2 The Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job


This section answers the question of whether or not gender moderates the relationship

between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian

Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the assumption below:

Hypothesis 9(b): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of gender



model is (R2= -1.139, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R

2= -0.038, p < 0.05) and

full equation model (R2= 0.112, p < 0.05). The findings indicate that there is a

significant effect of OJSgender variable towards the relationship between overall job

satisfaction and intention to leave.

Table 8.14: Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction

and Intention to Leave

Model

Intention to Leave



c1gender+ e


c1age+ d1OJSgender* + e

R2

ΔR2

Sig

-1.139**

.038**

.112**

-1.00**

-.016**

.055**

.000

.049

.000


* OJSgender = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and gender variable

357

With the overall job satisfaction being included in the equation, the additional

factor of intention to leave has decreased the contribution of job satisfaction by -1.6%.

Then, with the job satisfaction and intention to leave included in the equation, it is

found that the OJSgender variable gives additional contribution of 5.5% of the

variance into the relationships between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave.

Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

fully moderated by gender. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et al.

(1995) who found that gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and

intention to leave among nurses in the USA.

Next, in order to examine the moderation effect more closely, the sample was

divided into two groups using the procedure of simple slope computation as described

by Jose (2008). This step was accomplished by entering the statistical information

from the hierarchical regression result into the table constructed by Jose (2008). The

moderating variable is depicted with two lines designated as the two groups of gender.

From the findings depicts in Figure 8.3, the plot indicated that male academics were

more likely than female academics to have the intention to leave when the level of job

satisfaction was low. Nevertheless, when the level of job satisfaction was high, male

academics were slightly lower than female academics in the intention to leave the

organisation.

358

Figure 8.3: Interaction of Age and Overall Job Satisfaction in Predicting

Intention to Leave

8.6.3 The Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job


This section answers the question of whether or not tenure moderates the

relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics

in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the

assumption below:

Hypothesis 9(c): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of tenure

359

Table 8.15: Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job


Model

Intention to Leave



c1tenure+ e


c1age+ d1OJStenure* + e

R2

ΔR2 Sig

-1.345**

.070

.089**

-.969**

.002

.022**

.000

.088

.031


* OJStenure = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and tenure variable




2= 0.07, p = 0.088) and full

equation model (R2= 0.089, p < 0.05). The findings indicate that there is no

significant effect in the limited model in Equation 2., therefore, the relationship

between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is not moderated by tenure.

8.6.4 The Moderator Effect of Management Position on the Relationship

between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave

This section answers the question of whether or not holding management

position moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave among academics in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions. This question is

answered using the assumption below:

Hypothesis 9(d): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of holding

management position

360

Table 8.16: Moderator Effect of Holding Management Position on the Relationship

between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave

Model

Intention to Leave



c1holding management position + e


c1age+ d1OJSmpost* + e

R2

ΔR2 Sig

-1.305**

.002

-.045

-.940**

.001

-.025

.000

.918

.084


* OJSmpost = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and holding management

position variable




2= 0.02, p = 0.918) and full

equation model (R2= -0.045, p=0.084). The findings indicate that there is no

significant effect in the limited model in Equation 2 and full model in Equation 3.

Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is

not moderated by holding management position.

8.6.5 Summary of the Moderation Analysis Findings

The moderation roles of age, gender, tenure, and holding a management

position in the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave

were analysed using a hierarchical regression analysis. From the regression analysis,

three equations were considered and compared in identifying the interaction or

changes effect of all the four moderator variables on the relationship between overall

job satisfaction and intention to leave. The results indicated that only gender

moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,

while age, tenure, and holding management position were not moderators for

intention to leave. Another imperative finding is that, after completing the procedure

of simple slopes in order to examine the moderation effect of gender, it was found that

male academics were more likely than female academics to have an intention to leave

when the level of job satisfaction was low. Nevertheless, when the level of job

361

satisfaction was high, male academics were slightly lower than female academics in

the intention to leave the organisation. The implications of these moderation findings

will be elaborated further in Chapter 9.

8.7 Conclusion

This chapter has first determined the level of overall job satisfaction among

respondents in the quantitative study. The study found that respondents had a high

level of overall job satisfaction (M=3.69, SD=0.85). This finding compares very

favourably with findings of Castiglia (2006), Callister (2006), Goff (2004), Newby

(1999), and Oshagbemi (1997) and opposes several of the findings from past research

where academics had a moderate or low level of job satisfaction (Küskü, 2003;

Akpofure, 2006; Bilimoria et al., 2006). The finding in the current study reflected the

fact that job satisfaction is not a static, but dynamic occupational attitude that changes

based on various types of triggers or antecedents. In the quantitative study, the

outcome of high satisfaction among a large scale survey of academics in Malaysian

public universities might have resulted from their satisfaction with the current

situation in their workplace. These seem to include most of the antecedents of job

satisfaction in the preceding findings chapters, which include supportive environment

of the workplace, policies related to higher education, university’s support on research

and development, constructive communication among workers, promotion

opportunity, and satisfactory amount of fringe benefits.

Secondly, a vital finding in regards to overall job satisfaction in the

quantitative study was found where even though the majority of the academics

showed a tendency of having a good level of job satisfaction, there were also some of

them who conversely had an intention to find another job.

Third, in the survey findings, there were also differences of overall job

satisfaction based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. Male

academics were found to have a significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared

to their female counterparts. This finding is in contrast to Newby’s (1999) finding

among academics in the USA, Oshagbemi’s (2000) among academics in the UK, and

Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009) among employees in small and medium

362

enterprises in Australia, where females reported higher job satisfaction than males.

Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff (2009),

where in their study among academic staff in a Malaysian university, they found that

there were no significant differences between male and female academics with regard

to overall job satisfaction, and they concluded that overall job satisfaction does not

change as a function of gender. Hence, the study filled the gap in the literature of job

satisfaction based on gender, where in this study with a large number of respondents

male academics in Malaysian public higher educational sector have a higher job

satisfaction than the female academics.

Next, the current study found that older academics had a significantly higher

job satisfaction level than the younger ones. This finding supports the findings of

Newby (1999), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Toker (2011). Conversely, the current

study’s finding is inconsistent with Akpofure’s (2006) finding, where Akpofure found

that academics in Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older.

Consequently, this study’s finding in term of significant difference of

satisfaction based on age opposes the finding of Tu et al. (2005). They found that

there was no statistically significant difference in term of age for full-time Taiwanese

and Chinese academics at higher education in overall job satisfaction. The current

study’s finding can be expected since as one becomes older, they have a better

perspective on their job and work as well as increased loyalty with the organisation

they are working with. In the current study, older academics seemed to be happy

working in their university and regarded their university positively.

The study also found that there was no statistically significant difference in

overall job satisfaction based on different groups of tenure among respondents. This is

contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi (2000) among university academics in the

UK, Sarker et al. (2003) among hotel employee in Thailand, and Toker (2011) among

a university academics in Turkey, where they found significant differences of

satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies respectively. As mentioned

in Chapter 2 (p55), very few attempts have been made to investigate the influence of

tenure with job satisfaction among Malaysian academics. Hence, the current study’s

effort can be regarded as significant in filling the gap of literature on job satisfaction

and its relationship with tenure in Malaysian academics.

Another core finding in the current study is that academics without

management position had a significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared to

363

their counterparts. This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and Verdin (1983).

On the contrary, Ranz et al. (2001) in their study among psychiatrists in New York

found that psychiatrists in management positions experience significantly higher job

satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This particular finding is also dissimilar

with the one of Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009), where non-managerial employees

of small and medium enterprises in Australia reporting lower level of job satisfaction

than managers.

Academics without a management position in the current study have a higher

job satisfaction than their counterparts with a management position which may be

based on their lower level of responsibilities in the university. Based on the focus

group interviews with academics at the operational level, the job satisfaction results

relate to their ability to be free to focus on their daily tasks such as lecturing,

conducting research, supervising students’ thesis, or writing without any need for

involvement in management tasks.

Fourth, the study had identified that the level of intention to leave among

respondents was low (M=2.48, SD=1.17). This finding supports the findings of

Barrett and Yates (2002), Nasurdin and Ramayah (2005), and Ng and Sorensen

(2008). On the other hand, this particular finding opposes the work of Villanueva and

Djurkovic (2009) who found a moderate level of intention to leave among small and

medium enterprises workers in Australia, and high level of intention to leave in

Huang, Lawler and Lei’s (2007) study among auditors in public accounting firms in

Taiwan. Low level of intention to leave among Malaysian public higher education

institutions can be expected in association with their high level of job satisfaction,

because according to past studies, job satisfaction is negatively related with intention

to leave. Most of these academics enjoyed a lot of benefits working in public

universities and they seemed to be happy with the current state of support by the

government, the salary system, the fringe benefits, and the nature of the work,

amongst others.

Fifth, there were also differences of intention to leave based on different

categories of demographic backgrounds in the online study. Female academics were

found to have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male

counterparts. This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts and Chonko (1994), where

they found that female academics have a higher intention to leave than male

academics. However, this finding is different to Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009)

364

study among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia where they found

that there was no effect based on different gender on the intention to leave. In this

study females may believe that they can find other jobs rather than remaining

committed and loyal.

Another finding showed that academics without a management position had a

significantly higher intention to leave than academics with management position. This

finding supports the findings in past research where workers in operational level have

higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers (see Villanueva &

Djurkovic, 2009). This may be due to the ability of non-management academics to

find other places of work to build their careers either with local public or private

universities,. Whereas those academics with management positions may have less

intention to obtain employment elsewhere because of their promotion to management,

their conditions of work and status at their places of work.

There was no difference in intention to leave among different age groups and

this is opposite to the finding of Huang, Lawler and Lei (2007) where they found

significant differences in intention to leave among different age categories. There was

also no difference in intention to leave among different tenure groups of respondents.

Hence, it can be concluded that age and tenure are not significant issues in regards to

the intention to leave the organisation among academics in the context of Malaysian

public higher education institutions.

Sixth, the chapter presented bivariate correlation findings in an attempt to

show the relationships between the investigated variables in the online survey. The

study found that there were positive and linear relationships and coefficient

correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction.

These imply that in the context of Malaysian public higher education institutions,

when an antecedent of job satisfaction among academics is increased, their overall job

satisfaction is also increased.

Specifically, from the results, government and universities’ policies and

support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, nature of work, communication,

and work-life balance, had positive and moderate linear relationships with overall job

satisfaction. Whereas, pay, promotion, and fringe benefits showed a positive but low

linear relationships with overall job satisfaction. Operating conditions was positively

correlated with overall job satisfaction, but the strength of the relationship was very

low. Hence, these findings can be considered as a significant and important attempt to

365

filling up the gap of the recent studies on the association between various antecedents

of satisfaction and job satisfaction specifically in the Malaysian higher educational

context.

The study also found that there was a negative and very high linear

relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. This finding

particularly supports the findings in Youngcourt’s (2005) study among employed

students in a university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.’s (1995) longitudinal study

among registered nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA, and Falkenburg

and Schyns’s (2007) comparative study among electronic plants’ employees in

Netherland and Slovakia, where they found job satisfaction negatively correlated with

intention to leave the organisation.

Seventh, based on the results of mediation analysis, overall job satisfaction

significantly but partially mediated the relationships between government and

universities policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-

workers, nature of work, communication, and work-life balance with intention to

leave. Conversely, contingent rewards and operating conditions significantly and fully

mediated by overall job satisfaction in their relationships with intention to leave.

Since there is still no study initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the mediation

role of job satisfaction, the current study’s findings of mediation analysis provides

new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable between the

antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence variable of job satisfaction which

is intention to leave.

Eighth, using the hierarchical regression analysis, it was found that only

gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to

leave. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et al. (1995) who found that

gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave

among nurses in the USA. The other demographic backgrounds variables of age,

tenure, and holding management position were not the moderators for the relationship

between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave.

Ninth, another important finding in the realm of moderation analysis was,

male academics were more likely than female academics to have the intention to quit

when the level of job satisfaction was low, and when the level of job satisfaction was

high, male academics were slightly lower than female academics in the intention to

leave the organisation.. Hence, the current study’s findings on the moderation roles of

366

age, gender, tenure and management position in the relationship between overall job

satisfaction and intention to leave is a vital initial study made among academics in

Malaysian public higher educational sector.

Next, Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the research and concludes the

research by listing out contributions of the research towards theory, practice and

methodology. The chapter also proposes recommendations for future research.

367

Chapter 9

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Introduction

Chapter 9 presents the discussion, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

The chapter begins with a summary of the aims of the study, research questions,

research objectives, review of the literature, research methodology, and conceptual

framework used in the study. Following this, the chapter discusses the findings in

accordance with the questions of the study. Key contributions and implications from

the study’s findings are discussed in regards to job satisfaction of university

academics that may be of interest to university management, policy makers, and

human resource management practitioners. Finally, recommendations for further

studies are also outlined. The organisation of Chapter 9 is illustrated in Figure 9.1.

9.2 Summary of the Current Study and Research Aims

In the first stage of the research, a qualitative study was conducted which took the

form of semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews with seventeen

interviewees, comprised of sixteen academics from three public universities and a

former Minister of Higher Education Ministry of Malaysia, in order to get a feel for

the key issues of job satisfaction, its antecedents and the possible outcomes.

The next stage of the study was the quantitative study. Quantitative data

collection in this stage consisted of a pilot study of the survey conducted through

emails, and a self-administered quantitative survey conducted through a web survey

tool named SurveyMonkey. A visual model for mixed-methods sequential design

procedures was designed following the steps proposed by Ivankova et al. (2006) to

explain the flow of each phase of data collection, procedure, and product used in the

current study (refer to Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3).

368

Section

Description

This section introduces the chapter and

gives an overview of the sections

This section summarises the current study

and aims of the research

This section states the conceptual

framework of the study, research questions,

and research methodology

This section summarises findings of the

study together with conclusions in each of

the major findings

This section discusses the implications and

limitations of the study together with

recommendations for further studies

The section concludes the chapter


This research was constructed with four focal aims. Firstly, this study aimed to

explore the antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in public higher

education institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aimed to examine the

interactions between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job

satisfaction of the academics and their intention to leave. Thirdly, this study aimed to

investigate the consequence of overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention

to leave the organisation. Fourthly, this study aimed to investigate the mediation and

moderation effects of several specific variables in the study.

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Summary of the Current Study

& Research Aims

9.4 Findings & Conclusions

9.3 Conceptual Framework,

Research Questions, and

Research Methodology

9.5 Implications, Limitations &

Recommendations

9.6 Conclusion

369

9.3 Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research Methodology

There were three level of variables included in the conceptual framework of the

current study, which were the antecedent variables of job satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave. In accordance with the current development of

public higher education in Malaysia, together with the past research evidenced in the

literature, this study included eleven antecedent variables of job satisfaction. These

eleven variables were initially assumed to have positive relationships with overall job

satisfaction, where it was hypothesised that an increase of the value in these variables

would increase the value of overall job satisfaction.

Intention to leave is included in the conceptual framework as the selected

consequence of overall job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher

education institutions. It was initially assumed that all antecedents of job satisfaction

and overall job satisfaction have negative relationships with intention to leave, where

an increase of value in these variables would decrease the value of intention to leave.

The initial conceptual framework of the current study also demonstrated the

relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction

with intention to leave. According to the findings in past studies, several relationships

between variables were assumed to have positive and negative relationships. The

relationships among investigated variables are shown in Figure 9.2 below.

370

Figure 9.2: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Note: (+) represents positive relationship assumption, (-) represents negative relationship assumption

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

Demographics Backgrounds:

Age, Gender, Tenure, Management Position

Overall Job

Satisfaction

Organisational

Factors

Work -Life Balance

Government and


Support

Antecedents of

Job Satisfaction

Intention to

Leave

Pay

Promotion

Supervision

Fringe Benefits

Contingent Rewards


Co-workers

Nature of Work

Communication

371

Based on the literature reviews of the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall

job satisfaction, and intention to leave, Table 9.1 shows summary of research

questions together with the methodological design for the current study:

Table 9.1: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study


Methods

Data Analysis

1. What are the levels of all job

satisfaction antecedents among


education institutions in Malaysia?


categorising issues

discussed accordingly to

each variable

Quantitative Statistical analysis:

using frequencies,

percentages, and mean

values


satisfaction with antecedents of job

satisfaction based on gender, age,

tenure, and management position?


categorising issues

discussed accordingly to

each variable



3. What is the level of overall job

satisfaction among academics in

public higher education institutions

in Malaysia?


using frequencies,


values

4. What is the level of intention to

leave among academics in public

higher education institutions in

Malaysia?


using frequencies,


values


overall job satisfaction based on






intention to leave based on gender,

age, tenure, and management

position?



7. What are the relationships

between the antecedents of job

satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave?

Quantitative

Statistical analysis:

using Pearson’s

correlations

372

8. Does overall job satisfaction

mediate the relationships between

each of the antecedents of job

satisfaction with intention to leave?

Quantitative


- Using multiple

regression analysis

consisting of four

regression equations in

establishing mediation

- Implementing

Mackinnon et al. (1998)’s

‘Distribution of Product’

method = Z Z, to assess

for the significance of

mediation effect

9. Do demographic variables

moderate the relationship between

overall job satisfaction and

intention to leave?

Quantitative


- Using hierarchical

regression analysis by

looking at the interaction

term in establishing

moderation

- Using Jose (1998)’s

special graph calculation

to draw interaction term

between different group of

demographic backgrounds

9.4 Findings and Conclusions

This section presents the findings of all research questions that were used in this

study. Conclusions drawn from this based on each research question are summarised

in this section. Table 9.2 shows the summary for the current study’s findings.

373

Table 9.2: Summary for the Current Study’s Findings

Job Satisfaction

Antecedents

Interview Findings

(n=17)

Survey Findings

(n=1078)

Overall Satisfaction Arising

Issues

Overall

Satisfaction Gender Age Tenure

Management

Position

Government and

Universities

Policies &

Support (GUPS)

Mostly satisfied

(9 respondents)

1. Most of the satisfied respondents on the overall

satisfaction towards GUPS were those in the

operational level.

2. Specific issues raised:

- Funds for research & development activities

- Support for academics to further their studies

- Policy on university-industry partnership

- Internationalisation of public universities

Moderate

(Mean= 3.49,

SD= 0.66)

No significant

difference

between males

and female

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

No

significant

difference

between

seniors and

juniors

Academics

without

management

position were

more satisfied

Pay Majority were

satisfied

(10 respondents)

1. Academics in management level were more satisfied

towards pay

2. Equity issues in comparison to private universities and

senior academics

Moderate

(Mean= 3.17,

SD= 0.81)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics

without

management

position were

more satisfied

Promotion Majority were neither

dissatisfied nor

satisfied

(11 respondents)

1. Both academics in management and operational level

had a modest level of satisfaction with promotion

2. Equity issue raised by a senior academic on her

dissatisfaction with the promotion opportunities for

newer staff

Moderate

(Mean= 3.34,

SD= 0.99)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics

without

management

position were

more satisfied

Supervision Some were satisfied

(6 respondents) and

some were

dissatisfied

(5 respondents)

1. Satisfactions were mostly from management people,

while dissatisfactions were from the operational level


- Fairness and consideration

- Management strategy and leadership

- Consultation & freedom

Moderate

(Mean= 3.53,

SD= 0.79)

No significant

difference in

satisfaction

with

supervision

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

supervision

374

Fringe Benefits Half of the

respondents were

neither dissatisfied

nor satisfied

(8 respondents)

1. No obvious differences of overall satisfaction among

different demographic backgrounds

2. No issues raised other than general state of satisfaction

with fringe benefits

Moderate

(Mean= 3.09,

SD= 0.74)

No significant

difference in

satisfaction

with fringe

benefits

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with fringe

benefits

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

fringe befits

Contingent

Rewards

Majority were neither

dissatisfied nor

satisfied

(12 respondents)

1. Issue of Recognition Moderate

(Mean= 3.19,

SD= 0.78)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics

without

management

position were

more satisfied

Operating

Conditions

Mostly were

dissatisfied

(9 respondents)

1. Dissatisfactions came from both academics in

management and in operational level

2.Specific issues raised:


- Uninterrupted working conditions

- Work responsibilities

Low

(Mean= 2.51,

SD=0.82)

No significant

difference in

satisfaction

with

operating

conditions

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

operating

conditions

Co-Workers Most were satisfied

(9 respondents)

1.Satisfaction was shared by both groups of academics in

management and operational level

2. Some academics in the operational level were

dissatisfied


- Cooperation among colleagues

- The nature of constructive competition among

colleagues

Moderate

(Mean= 3.51,

SD= 0.62)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

No

significant

difference in

satisfaction

with co-

workers

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

co-workers

Nature of Work Most of them were

satisfied

(7 respondents)

followed by some

who were neither

dissatisfied nor

satisfied

(5 respondents)

1. Satisfactions came from both academics in

management and operational level


- The job itself


- Nature of teaching and research

High

(Mean= 4.06,

SD= 0.59)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

No significant

difference in

satisfaction with

nature of work

375

Communication Majority were neither

dissatisfied nor

satisfied

(10 respondents)

and

the rest were

dissatisfied

(6 respondents)

1. None of the respondents were satisfied

2. All respondents in management level were neither

dissatisfied nor satisfied

3. Dissatisfactions came from academics in the

operational level


- Poor communication

- Misunderstanding among academics and administration

staff

Moderate

(Mean= 3.30,

SD= 0.82)

Males were

more satisfied

than females

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

Senior

academics

were more

satisfied

Academics

without

management

position were

more satisfied

Work-Life

Balance

6 respondents were

satisfied

and

5 respondents were

neither dissatisfied

nor satisfied

1. All of the satisfied respondents were those in the

management level

2. Most of the respondents in the operational level were

neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, while two of them were

dissatisfied


- the issue of working

overtime and on

weekend

- family support

Moderate

(Mean= 3.18,

SD= 0.65)

√

Males were

more satisfied

than females

√

Older

academics

were more

satisfied

No

significant

difference

between

seniors and

juniors

No significant

difference

between

academics with

and without

management

position

Descriptive and Empirical Findings in the Quantitative Study

Survey Findings

(n=1078)

Overall

Level Gender Age Tenure

Management

Position

Overall Job Satisfaction

High

(M=3.69,

SD=0.85)

√

Males had a

higher overall

job satisfaction

than females

√

Older

academics

had a higher

overall job

satisfaction

No

significant

difference

between

seniors and

juniors

Academics

without

management

position had a

higher overall

job satisfaction

376

Intention to Leave Low

(M=2.48,

SD=1.17).

√

Females had a

higher level of

intention to

leave than

males

No

significant

difference

between age

groups

No

significant

difference

between

seniors and

juniors

Academics

without

management

position had a

higher intent to

leave

Antecedents of Job Satisfaction with Overall Job Satisfaction 1. Positive correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction.

2. Government and universities policies and support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, nature of work,

communication, and work-life balance show positive and moderate relationships with overall job satisfaction.

3. Pay, promotion, and fringe benefits have positive and low correlations with overall job satisfaction.

4. Contingent rewards showed the strongest level of correlation with job satisfaction.

5. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of correlation with overall job satisfaction.

Antecedents of Job Satisfaction with Intention to leave 1. Negative and linear correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave.

2. Government and universities policies and support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, and

communication had negative and moderate relationships with intention to leave the organisation.

3. Pay, promotion, fringe benefits, nature of work, and work-life balance, had negative and low correlations with

intention to leave.

4. Communication showed the highest strength of negative and linear correlation with intention to leave.

5. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of negative and linear correlation in the relationship with

intention to leave.

Overall Job Satisfaction with Intention To Leave Negative and very high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave

Mediating Role of Overall Job Satisfaction 1. Overall job satisfaction significantly but partially mediates the relationships between government and

universities policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-workers, nature of work,

communication, and work-life balance with intention to leave.

2. Overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationships between contingent rewards and

operating conditions with intention to leave.

Moderating roles of demographic backgrounds 1. Only gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave, while age, tenure,

and holding management position were not moderators.

2. Male academics were more likely than female academics to have an intention to leave when the level of job

satisfaction was low.


377

9.4.1 Key Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS, Organisational Antecedents, and

Work-Life Balance

As elaborated thoroughly in Chapter 1, the current study initiated an important

attempt to incorporate and regard GUPS as a pertinent antecedent of job satisfaction

of academics in Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions. Hence, the findings

in the current study showed several interesting findings in this regard.

First, interview respondents tended to express their satisfaction with the

support given by the government and their universities, in particular support for them

to further studies. Several respondents in the qualitative study especially those in the

operational level mentioned that they were satisfied with the support. This was so

because academics weighed the support they got against the scarce chance among

academics in private universities. Furthermore, the current study reports the same

outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support on research provision of further

education subsidies by the government and universities were regarded as important

attributes towards academics’ job satisfaction.

The above arguments reflect that most of the private higher educational

institutions in Malaysia have a very strict policy on sending academics to further

studies. Their academic members need to go through a very stringent process of

getting a place to further their studies because their universities want to spend their

monetary funds only on their most capable academics which in turn will benefit the

university.

Next, the policy on university-industry partnership was discussed as a factor

that led to mixed responses of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among respondents.

Although the issue was not discussed by the majority of the respondents in the

qualitative study, from the quotes and literature it appears to be an issue to be further

investigated. This is so, evidenced by several interview respondents’ contentions that

the policy does lead to academics being overloaded. A program coordinator of a

public university branch expanded on this issue which according to him, academics in

public university are happy to act positively upon the policy, with a condition –

teaching loads should be at the optimum level. The recommendations specifically on

this issue will be discussed in the next sub-section of operating conditions.

Subsequently, the issues of funds for research and development activities and

internationalisation of public universities led to dissatisfactions among interview

378

respondents. The issue of funds for research and development particularly, was

perceived as a trigger to academics’ dissatisfaction who work in the non-established

universities because of the small amount of research grant they could apply for.

Then, in terms of the issue of internationalisation of public universities, it was

also argued as a dissatisfaction factor among academics. Viewed as an ambitious

effort of the ministry and the universities by several interview respondents, it was

found that at the operational level, internationalisation of public universities is linked

to work overload. All in all, the findings from the qualitative study pointed out that

respondents were generally satisfied with GUPS.

In a broader scale of respondents in the quantitative study, the overall

satisfaction level with GUPS has been sought and the results showed that the

satisfaction among academics was moderate. The findings in the quantitative study on

the general level of satisfaction with GUPS cannot be compared with any other past

research since there is no similar attempt has been done in the Malaysian higher

education context. However, the current study’s finding are in keeping with the

finding of Ghazi et al. (2010), where they found that academics in a Pakistan

university were moderately satisfied with the dimension of organisational policies and

practices.

This might be so, based on the fact that not all academics in Malaysian public

universities seemed to feel satisfied with the policies and support of the Government.

As mentioned by Thillaisundaram (2003: 19), academics in Malaysian higher

education institutions were mostly ‘been exposed to the educational system applied in

various developed countries when they were there to further their education’. Their

experience with the policies imposed by the foreign educational authorities where

they were furthering their studies, gave them the understanding and mind-set of what

are lacking in the Malaysian higher educational policies and system. When the

Malaysian Government could not practice and implement the same level of beneficial

policies such as the support for research and development activities, status-quo as a

respected academics in the society, the perks and benefits given, and economic

stability, this was regarded as a key dissatisfactory cause that affected their level of

job satisfaction.

In another sense, the findings in the current study also support Seashore and

Taber’s (1975) assertion that this variable is indeed relevant as an indicator or

antecedent to job satisfaction. Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural,

379

and similar broad factors (in the current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account

to understand job satisfaction (Seashore & Taber, 1975: 349) in future research.

In accordance with the work of Mohd Noor (2004) among teachers in

Malaysia, Newby (1999), among principals in the USA and Spector (1997) among

various workers in several world continents the current study found several key

findings regarding the satisfaction with nine organisational antecedents among

academics through both qualitative and quantitative means. As shown in Table 9.2, it

was found that academics showed a high satisfaction with nature of work and low

satisfaction with operating conditions. Alternatively, their satisfactions with the other

antecedents were at a moderate level.

In regard to high satisfaction with the nature of work, factors such as being

attracted to teaching, students’ academic achievements, and the positive nature of

teaching and research were found to be the key contributors. Furthermore, the

quantitative findings oppose the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where university

academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction with nature of work.

While the other academics in other countries displayed low to moderate level of

satisfaction with the nature of work, the current study’s finding reflects the unique

culture of the workplace in the Malaysian context. The specific issues occurred in the

discussion among academics in the qualitative study showed that Malaysian

academics reflect the local culture that is shared together among Malaysian

academics. For instance, in Malaysian culture, individualism is something that is not

welcomed in any workplace including in the higher educational setting (see Abu

Bakar, 1985, Arshad, 2007, and Ch’ng et al., 2010), hence, academics in the

Malaysian higher education institutions are keen to work collectively. The Ministry of

Higher Education also actively promotes the culture of working collectively, as

evidenced by the greater amount of research dollars available for groups of academics

working together compared to those doing research individually (see Ministry of

Higher Education, 2012).

On the other hand, there was a low level of satisfaction showed by the

majority of respondents in the qualitative study and quantitative study with operating

conditions. The findings support the outcome of Oshagbemi (1999) among university

teachers in the UK, and Koustelios (2001) among Greek teachers where low

satisfaction was found among the respondents with operating conditions or working

facilities. Interestingly, the cause of low satisfaction among academics in the current

380

study were derived from several important factors, which were facilities at the

workplace, interrupted working conditions, and holding too many responsibilities.

These were similar with the findings of Koustelios (2001) among Greek teachers and

Oshagbemi (1999) among academics in the UK.

In the issue of facilities at the workplace, several interview respondents

suggested that basic needs to teach (such as classroom, stationeries, photocopy

machine, and so forth) should be prepared and well maintained by the faculty to

sustain the smoothness of teaching and learning process; it was evident that the poor

condition of the facilities in the university led to dissatisfaction.

The imbalance of monetary support between established public universities

with the other newly developed public universities in Malaysia is obvious (Utusan

Malaysia, 2007e). A large amount of funding was divided between research

universities, but then disproportionally divided amongst universities. This is not

regarded by most public universities’ management as unfair treatment (Mohamed,

2006) since this is the policy introduced by the government to enable universities to

focus more on the research universities to enhance and nurture R&D.

Interrupted working conditions also found to be a factor that impedes

academics’ job satisfaction. The fact that almost half of the interview respondents in

the qualitative study spoke extensively on this particular issue showed the significant

impact it has on academics’ happiness at workplace. Interruptions to teaching from

administrative work especially if it was unplanned were clear impediments to

academics being able to get on with their teaching and research.

The issue of work responsibilities was also revealed by many interview

respondents as a cause of dissatisfaction in terms of operating conditions. Several

arguments made by those in the management and operational level evidenced the

importance of having adequate time for academics to focus on their main tasks of

teaching and doing research, rather than focusing too much on administrative and

unrelated tasks.

Pertaining to academics’ overall satisfaction with work-life balance,

respondents were moderately satisfied towards work-life balance policy. This

particular finding was in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007) among

employees in Taiwan, where they found that their respondents were moderately

satisfied with work-life balance policy. This might be so in light to the nature of work

in university where there may be more flexibility that permits academics to focus on

381

balancing the needs at the workplace and their family and personal needs. That is why

this particular finding was inconsistent with the outcomes of Premeaux et al. (2007)

among workers in several manufacturing and service sector organisations in the

southern United States, and Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne (2007), which found that

their respondents have a low level of satisfaction with work-life balance. Workers in

manufacturing and service sector organisations have a very tight and rigid working

time that disallowed them to experience the equal freedom like academics in the

university in juggling the needs of work and life.

Subsequently, the result of the quantitative study shows that respondents had a

high level of overall job satisfaction. This finding is similar to the findings of Toker

among academics in Turkey (2011), Castiglia (2006) among a private college

academics in US, Goff (2004) among community college academics in US, Newby

(1999), Callister (2006) among science and engineering academics, and Oshagbemi

(1997) among academics in the UK. Conversely, this particular finding is in contrast

with the findings of Akpofure et al. (2006) who found that higher education

academics in Nigeria were highly dissatisfied with their job, and the findings of

Küskü (2003) in Turkey and Bilimoria et al. (2006) in the USA where university

academics had a moderate level of job satisfaction. The finding is also not consistent

with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff (2009) where they found that academics in a

Malaysian university were moderately satisfied with their job. Looking at the current

study findings, academics in Malaysian public university are happy with their job.

This research found that this may be due to the continuous effort of the government to

provide support for academics in doing their work at their workplace, reviewing the

system of salary and rewards from time to time, huge opportunities for promotion,

good supervision, and the ability of balancing the needs between work and life.

Additionally, the finding in the current study reflected the fact that job

satisfaction is not a static but dynamic occupational attitude that changes based on

various types of triggers or antecedents. In the quantitative study, the outcome of high

satisfaction among a large scale of academics in Malaysian public universities may

have been due to their their happiness with the current situation of their workplace.

These include most of the antecedents of job satisfaction in the preceding findings

chapters, which include supportive environment of the workplace, policies related to

higher education, university’s support on research and development, constructive

382

communication among workers, promotion opportunity, and satisfactory amount of

fringe benefits.

9.4.2 Key Findings: Satisfaction Based on Demographic Differences

9.4.2.1 Gender

In regards to the findings related to gender, there were no significant differences of

satisfaction with GUPS based on different gender of the academics. This was so

because there is no such policy, program, or strategy implementation that is different

between genders, where both genders are treated equally. This is based on the

assertion of Raja Zainal Abidin (2007) where the government without having any

special focus on any racial group, economic stability, ethnicity, religion and including

gender, has given a lot of subsidies and monetary allocation to develop the nations

human capital which is one of the prerequisites of attaining higher value-added

growth based on the recent global trends and development of knowledge and

technology.

Then, male academics were found to be more satisfied with pay than female

academics, nevertheless, in reality, there were no differences in terms of pay earned

by both male and female academics in Malaysian Public Higher Educational

Institutions (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2006). Females seemed to be

less satisfied because they might think that they should get a better and higher pay.

Such responses came from the experience of having too many additional

responsibilities at the workplace other than teaching. Additionally, evidenced by an

issue of work responsibility (see Chapter 6) raised in the qualitative study it seems

that female academics desire an increase in pay in accordance with the additional

work and responsibilities that they have contributed to the university.

Next, the differences of satisfaction with promotion between genders were

obvious in the quantitative study. Females were less satisfied than males. In reality,

the practice of promotion that takes into account gender is not common in Malaysian

public higher education institutions. In fact, there were several public universities in

Malaysia which had promoted female academics to be Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice

Chancellor, Dean, and so on (see Ministry of Higher Education, 2012). The results in

the quantitative study might come from the individual standpoint among female

academics that they want to see that more women (especially themselves) get a better

383

chance to be promoted in their universities. The finding is interesting, as a crystal

clear signal to the government and university in acknowledging the ability of women

to be leaders in the university.

In regards to the findings of contingent rewards’ satisfaction, the findings do

not mean that females get fewer rewards than males as there is no such policy of

giving rewards based on gender differences in Malaysian public universities (See

Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012).

Female academics may think that they should get more than what they get without

knowledge of or comparing with that obtained by male academics.

Female academics in the quantitative study showed a lower level of

satisfaction towards co-workers than male academics. However there was no strong

evidence of this in the qualitative study. Several statements by female academics

represent their concerns with co-workers issue. They spoke of issues of no ‘family

spirit’ and ‘no family surroundings’ in the workplace which demonstrates this as an

issue that the university should consider in improving the satisfaction of female

academics with co-workers.

Next, male academics were more satisfied with nature of work, which is

different with the finding by Okpara, Squillace and Erondu (2005) among academics

in the US. Several female academics defined their dissatisfactions with nature of work

by discussing several important issues like the dissapointment with the poor

communication flow and misinterpretation of information among workers. Females

may be more concerned with the social nature of the work surroundings than males

and these issues should be catered by the university in providing a better nature of

work especially among female academics.

Finally, the findings regarding work-life balance satisfaction has extended

past research in the realm of gender differences in work-life balance satisfaction. The

findings also support Deery and Jago’s (2009) framework that examines work-life

balance in terms of putting gender as among the important elements in completing

their proposed work-life balance model. Furthermore, in the current study, female

academics may feel the heavier burden on creating the balance between work and life.

Evidenced by the arguments by several female academics in the key-person and focus

group interviews in the qualitative study, females may be more concerned with the

family and personal life needs. When the university required them to fulfil more

stringent policies of working such as the implementation of new KPIs, these female

384

academics may have felt uncomfortable thinking of more time that they could spend

with their family, by doing things needed at the workplace.

9.4.2.2 Age

All in all, based on age differences in the quantitative study, older academics

were found to be significantly more satisfied than their younger counterparts with all

the antecedents of job satisfaction. The findings are interesting in reflecting how

academics become more satisfied with the antecedents of job satisfaction when they

get older. Evidenced by the arguments made in the qualitative study by several

academics (taking satisfaction with GUPS as an example), the government and the

universities are serious in taking care of the welfare of academic staff by providing a

continuous improvement in university policies, development, and support especially

for academics.

For instance, in terms of the higher satisfaction with GUPS among older

academics, this can be predicted, since the outcome of the current study is almost

identical with the work of Ali et al. (2012). They had investigated academics in a

public university situated at the northern region of Malaysia where they found that

older and more experienced academics have a higher career satisfaction level with

several factors including the changes and development of the university’s policy.

Furthermore, based on some of the major theme emerged from the open-ended

responses by the young academics in their study, reflected that they were disappointed

because the university applied a more stringent policy on promotion on them

compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42). Generally, the others in the

qualitative study explained that they are happy with the continuous positive support

and developments because the government is upgrading the quality of higher

education, and specifically the quality of academic staff. This is a verification of why

older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones. As argued by Oshagbemi

(1999), older academics regarded that they get better (in all forms of antecedents)

from their universities compared to what they received in the past. Next, taking

satisfaction with operating conditions as an example, the findings in the qualitative

and quantitative study showed that older academics were more satisfied than their

younger counterparts. This is because they can easily adapt to the difficulties or

problems at workplace. Evidenced by the responses given in the interviews, they

385

thought that any problems that occurred needed to be treated as a challenge, and that

in itself could lead to job satisfaction.

Generally, it was found that in terms of tenure, senior academics were more

satisfied with all antecedents of job satisfaction than the juniors, except for

satisfaction with GUPS, fringe benefits, co-workers, and work-life balance. Several

key findings were obvious in this case. According to the quantitative findings, juniors

were either less satisfied or equally satisfied with all the antecedents of job

satisfaction compared to their seniors. This might be so because they think that they

get lesser than what the seniors obtained which may be due to their lower positions

such as tutors. As reflected by the tutor’s argument, their dissatisfaction seemed to be

based on their job status, and their use of extensive knowledge and skills that were not

being compensated for.

Subsequently, in terms of satisfaction based on whether an academic holds a

management position or not, it was found in the quantitative study that academics

without management position were more satisfied than those with management

position in terms of GUPS, pay, promotion, contingent rewards, and communication.

No significant differences were found between the two categories of academics in

satisfaction with supervision, fringe benefits, operating conditions, co-workers, nature

of work, and work-life balance.

In regard to management levels, these specific findings are interesting. First, it

was found that there were no single antecedents where academics in management

position were more satisfied than those in the operational level. It seems that to be an

academic with additional responsibilities, and authority, even with extra allowances is

not enough to make him/her to be satisfied with their job. Secondly, the state of

satisfaction based on management position was different to those in the past studies.

For instance, in Rad and Yarmohammadian’s (2006) study, employees without

management position had a lower level of satisfaction with pay, contingent rewards,

and communication compared to the senior, middle, and first line managers at Isfahan

University Hospitals in Iran. This is an issue that should be carefully administered by

the university in order to maintain the ‘happiness level’, and furthermore the

commitment and enthusiasm of the academics that hold management positions.

Thirdly, there are no other similar findings that could be found in the literature

specifically on the satisfaction with pay among Malaysian higher education academics

by holding management position. Therefore, the current study’s findings are

386

considered as an important contribution in the realm of pay satisfaction among

academics higher education institutions with and without management positions.

Fourthly, these particular findings of satisfaction with GUPS among

academics based on different demographic characteristics are key outcomes in this

research. Since there was no literature stating any similar findings among academic

staff, these findings are of importance in filling the gap of research on the satisfaction

towards government and universities’ policies and support.

Finally, in association with overall job satisfaction, it was found in the

quantitative study that in term of gender, male academics had a significantly higher

overall job satisfaction compared to female academics. This finding contrasts to

Newby’s (1999), Oshagbemi’s (2000), and Villanueva and Djurkovic’s (2009)

findings. Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff

(2009), where they found no significant differences between male and female

academics with regard to overall job satisfaction. The particular finding in the current

study reiterates the similar pattern of satisfaction with the antecedents of job

satisfaction elaborated in the previous section. Subsequently, the study filled the gap

in the literature of job satisfaction based on different genders, where male academics

in Malaysian public higher educational sector have a higher job satisfaction than the

female academics. Females may have lower overall job satisfaction due to status

differences or family-work life conflict.

In term of age, older academics have a significantly higher level of overall job

satisfaction than their younger counterparts. This study’s finding compares very

favourably with the findings of Newby (1999), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Toker

(2011). Conversely, the current study’s finding is inconsistent with the findings of

Akpofure (2006), Sarker et al. (2003), Stemple (2004), and Tu et al. (2005). The

current study’s finding can be expected since mostly as one ages increased

commitment and loyalty results.. In the current study, older academics seemed to be

happy working in their university and regarded the university positively.

Next, pertaining to academics’ overall satisfaction by tenure, it was found that

that there was no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction among

the five different tenure groups. This is contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi

(2000), Sarker et al. (2003), and Toker (2011), where they found significant

differences of satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies respectively.

This is a clear sign that shows that tenure is not an issue that has any impact on

387

academics job satisfaction. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (p55), very few attempts have

been made to investigate the influence of tenure with job satisfaction among

Malaysian academics. Hence, the current study’s effort can be regarded as significant

in filling the gap of literature on job satisfaction and its relationship with tenure.

Finally, in regards to management position, it was found that academics

without management position had a significantly higher overall job satisfaction

compared to their counterparts. This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and

Verdin (1983) but opposes the work of Ranz et al. (2001) and Villanueva and

Djurkovic (2009). Academics without a management position may have a higher job

satisfaction due to their lower levels of responsibilities in the university.. Based on the

focus group interviews with academics in the operational level, some of them spoke

of being able to be free to focus on their daily tasks such as lecturing, conducting

research, supervising students’ thesis, or writings without any need to be involved in

management tasks. This was regarded as satisfactory factors among the academics.

9.4.3 Key Findings: Level of Intention to Leave the Organisation

The result in the quantitative study indicates that respondents had a low level

of intention to leave the organisation. This finding supports the outcomes of Barrett

and Yates (2002), Nasurdin and Ramayah (2005), Ng and Sorensen (2008), Roberts

and Chonko (1994), and Bartram et al. (2012), where the level of intention to leave

was low among their respondents. On the contrary, this particular finding opposes the

work of Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) and Huang, Lawler and Lei (2007). Low

levels of intention to leave among Malaysian public higher education institutions can

be expected in association with their high level of job satisfaction, because according

to past studies, job satisfaction is negatively related with intention to leave. Most of

these academics enjoyed a lot of benefits working in public universities and they

seemed to be happy with the current state of support by the government, the salary

system, the fringe benefits, the nature of the work, and several other factors.

In accordance to the finding in the quantitative study, it was found that female

academics have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male

counterparts. This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts and Chonko (1994). In this

regard females’ intention to leave may be related to their lower levels of job

388

satisfaction. . This might be the case in the current study, where females might think

that they can find other jobs rather than remain with the current university.

Next, it was found that there is no significant difference in intention to leave

based on different groups of age. This finding is opposite to the finding of Huang,

Lawler and Lei (2007) where they found significant difference in intention to leave

among different age categories. Hence, it can be concluded that age and tenure are not

a significant issues in regards to the intention to leave the organisation among

academics in the context of Malaysian public higher education institutions.

Then, intention to leave is not influenced by different level of tenure among

academics. Finally, academics without management positions had a significantly

higher intention to leave than academics with management position. This finding

supports the findings in past research where workers at the operational level have a

higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers (Villanueva & Djurkovic,

2009). This shows that operational levels of academics have less loyalty. Once

workers become managers their commitment seems to increase. This is supported by

Brown (2008) and DeMato (2001). Additionally, this might be so, based on the

findings of satisfaction in previous chapters, because academics at the management

level find the jobs more convenient in terms of the status they have, the salary and

rewards they earn. On the contrary, academics in the operational level might think

that they could be ‘happier’ if they work elsewhere and that may lead to their

intention to leave the current organisation.

9.4.4 Key Findings: The Relationships between the Antecedents of Job

Satisfaction, Overall Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Leave

Based on the correlation result in the quantitative study, in terms of the

relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction,

there are positive and linear relationships and coefficient correlations between all

antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction. These imply that when an

antecedent of job satisfaction is increased, overall job satisfaction is also increased.

These findings were in accordance with the findings of Akpofure et al. (2006), Barret

and Yates (2002), Donnelly (2006), Koustelios (2001), Mohd Noor (2004), and

Spector (1997).

389

Of all, albeit its moderate level of relationship with overall job satisfaction,

contingent rewards showed the strongest level of correlation in regards to its

relationship with job satisfaction. This highlights that workers desire to be rewarded

according to their performance. Subsequently, operating conditions showed the

weakest strength of positive and linear correlation in the relationship with overall job

satisfaction. This weak relationship between operating conditions with overall job

satisfaction is considered as almost negligible relationship according to the Guilford’s

rule of thumb as explained in Chapter 3. This points to workers not really being

impacted by poor working facilities in measuring their overall levels of job

satisfaction, despite being spoken of in the interviews.

In regards to the relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and

intention to leave, it was found in the quantitative study that there are negative and

linear relationships and coefficient correlations between all job satisfaction

antecedents with intention to leave. These imply that when an antecedent of job

satisfaction increases, intention to leave decreases.

Additionally, communication showed the highest strength of negative and

linear correlation with intention to leave, thus demonstrating the impact of social

factors on work attitudes. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of

negative and linear correlation in the relationship with intention to leave. Again,

similar to the correlation findings with overall job satisfaction, this weak relationship

between operating conditions with intention to leave the organisation is considered as

almost negligible relationship according to the Guilford’s rule of thumb.

Next, it was found in the quantitative study that there was a negative and very

high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. This

is considered as a very dependable relationship based on Guilford’s rule of thumb.

This finding particularly supports the findings in Youngcourt’s (2005) study

among employed students in a university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.’s (1995)

longitudinal study among registered nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA,

and Falkenburg and Schyns’s (2007) comparative study among electronic plants’

employees in Netherland and Slovakia, where they found job satisfaction negatively

correlated with intention to leave the organisation. The current study’s finding

contribute to literature in highlighting the negative linear relationship between job

satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian public higher

education, conforming the same outcomes across geographical, and national contexts.

390

9.4.5 Key Findings: Mediation and Moderation Roles

As elaborated in the previous chapters and summarised in Table 9.2, the

purpose of having mediation analysis is to examine whether an independent variable

leads to another variable (the mediator), which then transmits the effects of the

independent variable to the dependent variable. Therefore, since there is still no study

initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the mediation role of job satisfaction, the

current study’s findings of mediation analysis provides new insights into

implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable between the antecedents of job

satisfaction and the consequence variable of job satisfaction which is intention to

leave.

On the other hand, the moderation roles of age, gender, tenure, and holding

management position in the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention

to leave were analysed using a hierarchical regression analysis. The results indicated

that only gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with

intention to leave, while age, tenure, and holding management position were not

moderators for intention to leave. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et

al. (1995) who found that gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction

and intention to leave among nurses in the USA. Furthermore, it was found that when

the level of job satisfaction was high, male academics were slightly lower than female

academics in regards to the intention to leave the organisation. Hence the impact of

gender is important as females may believe they have less ability to obtain another job

and even with low job satisfaction may be more likely to remain with the university.

Or else male academics may believe that their working lives will improve over time

due to promotion prospects or salary adjustments.

9.5 Implications, Limitations & Recommendations

9.5.1 Contributions to Knowledge

In regards to the theoretical standpoint, several content and process theories of

job satisfaction are found to be supported by and in line with the findings in the

391

current study. First, as elaborated extensively in Chapter 2 on the gist of content

theories, the current study found that academics in the investigated higher education

institutions regard all the eleven antecedents of job satisfaction as important drivers

towards their overall job satisfaction. Maslow’s Hierarchical Needs Theory for

instance, is found to be related very much to the current study. It assists in answering

the question of what kind of organisational factors have significant influence on

academics’ job satisfaction. Hence, this theory helps in terms of clarifying and

associating specific needs of university academics in Malaysia with the investigated

organisational factors which in the current study are the antecedents of academics’ job

satisfaction. It also helps the university and policy makers to categorize and take

action on focusing academics’ needs based on their priority from the lower level to

the next higher ones.

As evidenced in the qualitative study, academics in Malaysian public

universities resemble what Maslow (1954) describes as ‘always wanting’. Once a

need is fulfilled, then the other higher needs must be fulfilled. For instance, key-

persons in the management level, regarded pay as no longer the ‘main driver’ towards

their job satisfaction. As their need to obtain a good pay scheme has been fulfilled,

they are craving a more satisfying need, which according to Maslow is regarded as a

higher level of needs compared to pay which is a physiological need. This was

evident in the high ranking of communication in the study. In the sphere of safety

needs, the issue of safe working conditions, company benefits, and job security, are

several of the factors that workers in the management level desire. To several extents

these people will desire self-esteem and status needs to make them satisfied, which

include feelings of achievement and responsibility.

In the same sense, academics in the operational level yielded their

dissatisfactions with pay, and portrayed that without the fulfilment of this need, no

other needs could make them happier to work in the university. This key finding was

particularly found in the quantitative part of the study.

On the other hand, the fulfilment of needs is not necessarily a progression

through from lower level to higher levels of needs. According to Mullins (2006), even

though Maslow suggests that most people have these basic needs in about the order

indicated, he also makes it clear that the hierarchy is not necessarily a fixed order.

In accordance to arguments made by scholars on Maslow’s hierarchical needs

theory, a person may be trying to satisfy a number of needs at any one time, and not

392

everyone will seek satisfaction of the needs in the order suggested (Porter et al.,

2006). It is believed that differences in individual backgrounds, culture, and other

factors will dictate which needs to be fulfilled first and which needs are not. This is

reflected by several statements made in the focus group interviews in the qualitative

study, where several academics in the operational level argued that they were satisfied

with several higher rank needs but not satisfied with lower needs according to

Maslow’s hierarchy. Also gender differences were apparent with females desiring

better social relationships more than males.

Next, the current study in referring to Herzberg’s Hygiene-Motivator Theory,

draws attention to several key antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in

Malaysian public higher education institutions. Without any intention of exploring

discrepancies between the two categories of hygiene and motivator antecedents as

proposed by Herzberg, the current study found the abilities of several antecedents of

job satisfaction to work as indispensable contributors towards the state of happiness

among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. This includes the

newly incorporated variables found in the current study, Government and Universities

Policies and Support (GUPS) and work-life balance, which is suggested to be

included and refined in the future research among higher education academics, apart

from nine organisational antecedents suggested by Spector (1997), which are pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-

workers, nature of work, and communication.

Then, Work Adjustment theory was argued to be a pertinent indicator for

academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions as they act, react, and

come to terms with their work environment (which is their universities), thus

adjusting to the particular work environment (Stemple, 2004). In the current study- in

regards to Work Adjustment theory- an academic is assumed to be satisfied with

his/her job, if he/she corresponds positively with the university’s working

environment, or vice verse. This is evidenced by the current study’s findings on age,

where senior academics have a higher job satisfaction level than the juniors. Taking

pay satisfaction as one of the evidences, several key-persons who were the senior

academics, were found to correspond positively with the university environment

which in turn has made them satisfied with their pay. Also, in accordance to Work

Adjustment theory, key-person interviews demonstrated positive emotions in regards

to the work environment and how they have adapted to it over time.

393

Finally, the current study also took into account the proposition in Equity

theory that academics tend to compare their own outcomes measured against the

inputs they contribute toward the university, and at the same time evaluate in

comparison with the other academics in the same universities or from other

universities. The current study’s findings also authenticated the notion that equality in

‘input-output’ term impacts an academic’s state of satisfaction where an academic

experiences satisfaction when he is rewarded for work he did compared to others.

Furthermore, the judgement of equality among the academics in the current study

lingered around the issue of different gender, groups of age, tenure in the university,

and between those with and without management positions.

For example, there were many comments by senior academics that juniors

now have better working conditions and promotion opportunities than they had and

conversely from junior academics that their positions were not as favourable as senior

academics.

Another example is a comment made by a tutor pertaining to supervision. He

argued that the management people in his faculty should delegate any works to

everybody fairly. He added that the current practice is not right where his dean and

head of department simply direct male academics to do everything rather than

involving female academics too and simply delegate academic tasks among juniors

and tutors and not among seniors.

These arguments made by the respondents in the qualitative study were

basically related to the notion in equity theory, where the dissatisfaction is the result

of a person who found dissimilarity of what he/she obtained compared to others. On

the other hand though, satisfaction will be the result if a person perceives equity in

comparison with others.

In regards to the literature of the antecedents of job satisfaction, job

satisfaction, and intention to leave, the current study has contributed in filling several

gaps in the body of knowledge. Among other things, first, a lot of key issues been

spoken out and discussed extensively by the academics in the qualitative study were

based on each antecedent of job satisfaction (refer to Table 9.2). The issues are of

important in the light of extending the past studies findings of what specifically the

academics in higher education institutions feel about their job. In this sense, the

findings also contributed in showing the specific issues that necessitate attention from

394

the universities and policy makers. These issues can be found in Chapter 4, Chapter 5,

Chapter 6, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8.

Secondly, the current study highlights the current state of job satisfaction

among academics in Malaysia, particularly in the public higher education institutions.

Since there has been no similar attempt done in doing such a comprehensive

investigation on specific antecedents of job satisfaction, the current study could

provide value in guiding future studies in similar educational setting either in

Malaysia or in any other countries. This is because past studies among university

academics in Malaysia focus either on one single variable of overall job satisfaction

or on several antecedents of job satisfaction, while the current study incorporated

eleven antecedents or factors of satisfaction and explored their relationships with

overall job satisfaction and intention to leave the organisation as the consequence

variable.

Thirdly, there is no other study in Malaysia has initiated such a comprehensive

analysis on the mediation role of job satisfaction. The current study’s findings of

mediation analysis provides new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a

mediator variable between the antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence

variable of job satisfaction which is intention to leave. Furthermore, the findings of

the mediation analysis highlighted the role of job satisfaction in mediating the

relationship between the antecedents of job satisfaction and intention to leave among

academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. In this sense, it is worth

mentioning that overall job satisfaction had the potential to alleviate the impact of

contingent rewards and operating conditions on intention to leave, whereas it had

some potential to do so with the impact of other variables on intention to leave. In

regards to the particular mediation findings, as suggested by Villanueva and

Djurkovic (2009), these are essential in guiding the future research to highlight the

role of job satisfaction between any other correlated attitudinal and behavioural

variables among academics in higher education institutions in Malaysia.

Fourthly, in the attempt of investigating the moderating role of demographic

variables in the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,

the current study has highlighted several vital contributions to the literature of job

satisfaction among academics in higher education. It was found that only gender

moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,

395

while age, tenure, and management position were not the moderators for the

aforementioned relationship.

9.5.2 Implications for Methodology

As discussed in Chapter 2 and previous finding chapters, many prior studies

on the job satisfaction particularly among academics in higher education have used

quantitative methodologies (see Akpofure, 2006; Bilimoria et al., 2006; Küskü, 2003;

Noordin and Jusoff, 2009; Okpara et al., 2005; Oshagbemi, 1997). This study

demonstrates the advantages in using mixed methods as a research strategy for human

resource management and higher educational research, particularly a sequential mixed

design.

First, different methods enabled the researcher to find answers for different

objective in the current study. Second, as argued by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009),

mixed designs help the researcher to answer exploratory and confirmatory questions

chronologically in a pre-specified order. This is related to the investigation of the

association between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction and

intention to leave as the consequence variable through the execution of the qualitative

and quantitative studies.

Third, the advantage is that it is less complicated to be conducted by a solo

investigator because it is easier to keep the strands of quantitative and qualitative data

collection separate, and the studies typically unfold in a slower, more predictable

manner as asserted by Jang (2008) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009). Fourth, apart

from these, mixed methods designs also enable triangulation to take place (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2009).

Consequently, the current study has made a contribution by executing the

mixed methods approach. This study implemented a sequential manner of collecting

mixed methods data, which started with the first stage, a qualitative methods study

and followed by the second stage of the study, a quantitative methods study. The

quantitative study also contributes as it involved such a large scale of respondents

which comprised of 1078 respondents. Compared to past research, the number of

survey respondents in the current study is assumed to be remarkable.

Another contribution of this research to the job satisfaction literature is the

variation of findings based on the selected demographic backgrounds of age, gender,

396

tenure, and management position among academics in public higher education

institutions. This study found several key findings in regards to the differences of the

level of satisfaction with the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction,

and intention to leave based on different categories of selected demographic

backgrounds. This is vital since no study has initiated a comprehensive multi-methods

research on the association between demographic variables with job satisfaction and

intention to leave among academics particularly in Malaysian public higher

educational setting.

Furthermore, it is hard to find any similar attempt of investigating the

moderating role of demographic backgrounds -in the current study they were age,

gender, tenure, and management position- in the literature. Hence, the related findings

from the current study contribute to the gap of literature in the realm of the

demographic backgrounds and its influence on human resources’ attitudinal and

behavioural research.

9.5.3 Implications for the University and Policy Makers

This study has provided findings related to the relationships between the

antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave among

academics in public higher education institutions in Malaysia. In light of the findings

in the qualitative study, quantitative study, and information obtained from the

literature, according to Deery (2008) it is worth considering that at the organisational

level, there are a number of actions that can be adopted by the university management

to increase and maintain the satisfaction and in the same time minimise the level of

turnover among academic staff. The following implications for the university and

policy makers have been identified.

University managers, as far as is reasonably possible, need to give academics

sufficient control over the way in which they perform their duties (Villanueva &

Djurkovic, 2009), which may require that particular attention be paid to job design

approaches, such as skill utilization (Mohd Noor, 2004). Furthermore, university

managers should attempt to ensure that their employees do not feel isolated or

undervalued, and that they have the opportunity to attain an appropriate success in

their career (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009), as compared to any other academics in

the same university or from other universities.

397

From a managerial perspective, encouraging a high level of job satisfaction

is an essential part of retaining academic staff (Mohd Noor, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1997a;

Toker, 2011). As a means to alleviate turnover intentions, university managers may

improve aspects of the academics’ jobs. The extent to which employees feel that their

job is pleasant and enjoyable is important, and for this, management must attempt to

create a working environment that is conducive to job satisfaction (Villanueva &

Djurkovic, 2009). For instance, Noordin and Jusof (2009) argue that it can be very

difficult for university management to communicate with the majority of their

academic staff. Conversations regarding an academic staff’s work environment can

fall to the wayside, and in some instances, never take place (Noordin & Jusof, 2009).

Hence, organisational climate surveys that occur on a scheduled basis (e.g., annually,

biannually, etc.) can be a more efficient way for the management to gather important

information (Mohd Noor, 2004; Noordin & Jusof, 2009).

Another example is, as a reference to the concept of satisfaction in Herzberg’s

Hygiene-Motivator theory, university management may consider critical changes as a

means of an elucidation such as job enrichment. Job enrichment provides more

challenges with a greater sense of achievement and it ensures that interesting jobs are

created (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). In the common perspectives of university

academics, this study found that good relationships with co-workers and superiors are

also essential to academics. Hence, as Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) argue

university managers should look to facilitate the development of a harmonious and

supportive culture at the university. In particular this can be done by focussing on

improving the operating conditions of academics. Evidenced by the findings in the

current study, the university should at their best set up a good quality and sufficient

quantity of facilities such as lecture halls, teaching aids, internet connection,

photocopy machines, and so on. Furthermore, comfortable working conditions, and

optimum work responsibilities also should be carefully administered by the university

in order to sustain satisfaction among academics.

In regards to the satisfaction with work-life balance, the implication of this

study is that the boundaries between work and home are fluid. Academics especially

females continually argued that they found this separation difficult to make with work

encroaching on family time especially at weekends. This in particular led to poorer

job satisfaction for women. O’Brien and Hyden (2008) suggest that flexibility in work

practice is becoming an integral part of employment, particularly in public sector

398

organisations, which are in effect, leading the way on this issue of work-life balance.

On top of that, academic staff also felt that they were forced to give more attention

towards their work, and had limited time spent for their own life and family.

According to Deery (2008) it is worth to ponder that at the organisational

level, there are a number of actions that can be adopted by the university management

to increase and maintain the satisfaction towards work-life balance practice and

policies and in the same time minimise the level of turnover among academic staff.

The strategies to assist in balancing work and family life which offered by Deery

(2008) include:

a. providing flexible working hours such as roistered days off and family

friendly starting and finishing times;

b. allowing flexible work arrangements such as job sharing and working at

home;

c. providing training opportunities during work time;

d. providing adequate resources for staff so that they can undertake their jobs

properly;

e. determining correct staffing levels so that staff are not overloaded;

f. allowing adequate breaks during the working day;

g. having provision for various types of leave such as carer’s leave and ‘time-

out’ sabbatical types of leave;

h. rewarding staff for completing their tasks, not merely for presenteeism;

i. staff functions that involve families;

j. providing, if possible, health and well-being opportunities such as access to

gymnasiums or at least time to exercise; and

k. encouraging sound management practices.

This study could also serve as a platform for any Malaysian university

management and higher education policy makers to address the issue of intention to

leave and furthermore the turnover of academics.

9.5.4 Limitation of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research

Even though the current study has made a significant contributions and

implications to theory, knowledge, methodology, and practice in regards to job

399

satisfaction among academics in higher education institutions in Malaysia, several

limitations exist in the present study which warrants review.

This study was done on the job satisfaction of academics in three participating

public higher education institutions in Malaysia. Discussion of variables related in this

study such as demographic backgrounds, antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job

satisfaction, and intention to leave is confined to the respondents’ feedback on the

study. Thus, in regards to generalizability of the results, all the findings from the

current study were confined only to academics in the participating universities and

cannot be generalised to academics in any other public universities in Malaysia.

Further studies in the similar framework should be conducted to determine the

antecedents of job satisfaction, overall level of job satisfaction and intention to leave

among academics in all 20 public universities in Malaysia. Additionally, it is

recommended for the future studies to extend the same conceptual framework of the

current study into the private sector of higher education in Malaysia which then could

compare differences of job satisfaction, between private and public universities

academic staff, or in a broader setting, between local Malaysian university academics

and other regional countries.

Next, the nature of work was found to be the most influential organisational

antecedents of job satisfaction towards academics overall job satisfaction which

support findings of past studies (see Mohd Noor, 2004; Newby, 1999; Okpara, 2006;

Oshagbemi, 1997; Spector, 1997). Hence, the government and the university should

maintain the effective effort on setting up a conducive and supportive working

environment. This is especially in the realm of the issues spoken out through the

qualitative study, which among those are the job itself, students’ factor, and the

positive nature of teaching and doing research.

Although the relationships were moderate, the current study has also

successfully shown the relationships between GUPS and work-life balance with

overall job satisfaction among academics. In regards to GUPS, as elaborated in the

previous chapters, the demands of economic globalisation, escalating competition and

reduced government funding have affected higher education sector and have led to

many universities including in Malaysia adopting market-driven principles in relation

to their workplace practices and policies. For academic staff, this has meant elevated

workloads, higher expectations concerning research, increased administrative tasks,

and so on. These, which are policy-related issues, would in turn affect their

400

occupational attitudes such as job satisfaction, commitment and intention to leave and

even worst could lead to actual turnover.

It is worth future studies determining any other important antecedents that

may have a significant influence on academics’ job satisfaction particularly among

academics in the public higher education institutions. On top of that, it is anticipated

that through the outcome of the current study, more future research focusing on

investigating the condition of GUPS and satisfaction with work-life balance of

academics and their association with any other critical attitudes and behaviour could

be initiated.

Then, in regards to the consequences of job satisfaction, it is recommended for

future studies to associate job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public

higher education institutions with critical and imperative variables other than intention

to leave. This could include occupational stress, organisational commitment,

organisational citizenship behaviour, perceived organisational support, absenteeism,

and turnover.

Consequently, from the findings in the mediation analysis, it is noteworthy for

future studies to look at the role of job satisfaction as a mediator between the

relationship of other attitudinal and behavioural variables. Also, the attempt of

incorporating demographic variables in the current study as moderators should be

extended in further studies to find any other significant yet important moderating roles

between any investigated variables.

Finally, a similar study should be conducted using a different mixed-methods

research design other than interviews and surveys which has been implemented in the

current study. For example, future studies can incorporate case study, together with

interviews and/or survey, in order to use additional enriched information on the level

of job satisfaction together with its antecedents and consequences variables among

academics of Malaysian public higher education institutions.

9.6 Conclusion

Chapter 9 is the final chapter of this thesis. This study enriches the literature on the

antecedents, the state of, and consequence of job satisfaction among academics in

Malaysian public higher education institutions. This study demonstrates the

associations between eleven pertinent antecedents of satisfaction with the overall job

401

satisfaction of Malaysian public higher education academics as depicted in the

conceptual framework in Figure 9.2. The factors of Government and Universities

Policies and Support and Work-Life Balance are two other antecedents - which

seldom are perceived as important factors to weigh up job satisfaction in the

literature- have been incorporated as components of the overall framework of

academics’ job satisfaction. Finally, the impacts and interrelationship between all the

antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction are also found with

intention to leave among academics.

As asserted in the thesis, several key findings in the current study vitally

contribute to the body of knowledge in regards to job satisfaction studies.

Implications, limitation and recommendations for methodology, for the university and

policy makers, and future research convey clearly the current state of job satisfaction

particularly among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions,

which in turn, assist in the provision of a happy workplace for higher education

academics.

402

APPENDIX A: Ethics Approval letters

Memorandum

ACADEMIC SERVICES Faculty of Law and Management

La Trobe University Victoria 3086 AUSTRALIA

Telephone: 9479 1603 Fax: 9479 1484

To: Mr Khairunneezam Mohd Noor

From: Mrinali Clarke, Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee

CC: Dr Pauline Stanton

Date: 27th September 2007

Subject: Ethics Approval No. 52/07R

Title: Job satisfaction in Malaysian Higher Education

Dear Neezam

The Faculty Human Ethics Committee (FHEC) has assessed your application as complying with the National Health and

Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with University

guidelines on Ethics Approval for Research with Human Subjects.

The Committee has granted approval for the period 1st October 2007 to 1

st November 2007.

Please note that the FHEC is a sub-committee of the University’s Human Ethics Committee (UHEC). The decision to approve

your project will need to be ratified by the UHEC at its next meeting. Consequently, approval for your project may be

withdrawn or conditions of approval altered. However, your project may commence prior to ratification. You will be notified

if the approval status is altered.

The following special conditions apply to your project:

Q.8 b) Please provide expected age range of participants, not just “working adults”;

Q.13 a, b, c) need to provide a response to the committee;

Data needs to be preserved for 5 years in supervisor’s office, and then destroyed.

The following standard conditions apply to your project:

Complaints. If any complaints are received or ethical issues arise during the course of the project, researchers should advise

the Secretary of the FHEC by mail or email: [email protected].

Limit of Approval. Approval is limited strictly to the research proposal as submitted in your application, while taking into

account the conditions and approval dates advised by the FHEC.

Variation to Project. As a consequence of the previous condition, any subsequent variations or modifications you may wish

to make to your project must be notified formally to the FHEC. This should be done using Application for Approval of

Modification to Research Project Form, which is available from the FHEC Secretary. If the FHEC considers that the proposed

changes are significant, you may be required to submit a new Application Form.

Progress Reports. You are required to submit a Progress Report annually (if your project continues for more than 12 months)

and/or at the conclusion of your project. The completed form should be returned to the Secretary of the FHEC. Failure to

submit a Progress Report will mean that approval for this project will lapse. An audit may be conducted by the FHEC at any

time. Your Progress Report is due on 1st December 2007.

If you have any queries, or require any further clarification, please contact me at the Faculty of Law and Management on 9479

1603, or by e-mail: [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Mrinali Clarke

Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee

mailto:[email protected]

1

RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES OFFICE

MEMORANDUM To: Dr Pauline Stanton, Graduate School of Management, FL&M Mr Khairunneezam Mohd Noor, Graduate School of Management, FL&M From: Secretary, La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee Subject: Review of Human Ethics Committee Application No. 08-127 Title: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among academics in Malaysian higher

education Date: 19 September 2008 Thank you for submitting your application for ethics approval to the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (UHEC) for the project referred to above. A sub-committee of the UHEC reviewed your application in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with University Human Research Ethics Guidelines. Your project has been granted provisional ethics approval. Final approval to commence the project will follow when the UHEC receives the following information and/or revised documentation:

1) You have provided inconsistent responses in regard to confidentiality of the interview participants. Section 12 states that interviewees will be asked if they agree for their identity to be made known; Section 20 (b) states that confidentiality will be maintained; Section 21 (a) states that identity may be made known if the interviewee agrees. You need to clarify this matter.

2) The UHEC has noted that one university gives consent to research being conducted until 31 March

2009 and another until 31 January 2009. You should ensure that the start date and end date of your proposed research will comply with the approvals granted by each of the universities. If you plan to extend the research beyond the 31 January 2009, then it is recommended that you seek approval from that university to extend the permission beyond that date. Please comment.

3) It is unclear if the consent given by the universities includes their consent for you to conduct both the

surveys and the interviews (or just the surveys). You should clarify this by including it in the ethics application form and amending the original letter that was sent to those universities.

4) Please clarify if the translated copies of each of the Participant Information Sheets and Consent

Forms are certified copies? If not it would be preferable for certified copies to be provided, although the UHEC does not want to impose a financial burden on to a student. Is certification available through La Trobe’s International Student Services?

5) Section 21 (c) – Given that the surveys are anonymous how will you be able to provide individual

results to the survey respondents? You should clarify this and, if necessary, amend the Participant Information Sheets.

2

6) Section 4.8.16 of the National Statement requires that a “local, readily accessible contact should be

available to participants to receive...complaints”. You are therefore advised to try to provide a local contact and include their contact details on the Participant Information Sheets.

Please do not resubmit a revised ethics application but respond to the above points in a memorandum format and provide any amended documents as requested. The applicant is required to notify other Human Research Ethics Committee, if applicable, of any modifications to the project. If you have any queries on the matters mentioned above or require any further clarification please contact me through the Research and Graduate Studies Department by phone on 9479 1443, or by e-mail at [email protected] Barbara Doherty UHEC Secretary and Administrative Officer (Research Ethics) La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee

405

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE KEY PERSON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Based on the present socio-economic and political situation and development in

Malaysia, it is assumed that reforms like increasing government financial support to cultivate research and development (R&D) activities in universities, development of more active collaborations between the government, industry and universities, the added numbers of students quota in each university, and government and private sector’s efforts on building the world class higher education, have significant and substantial impacts toward universities and its academic staff.

From your perspective are these developments having any impacts on your job satisfaction and on your academic staff’s job satisfaction? If Yes, why? If No, why?

2. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job satisfaction

and your academic staff’s job satisfaction (for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)? Why?

3. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job

dissatisfaction and your academic staff’s job dissatisfaction (for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)? Why?

4. What is it the job that you and your academic staff do?

5. From your point of view, what are the key components of the job that really make

you and your academic staff satisfied?

6. From your point of view, what are the key components of the job that make you and your academic staff not satisfied?

7. Do you think that in your role as a leader has any impact on your academic staff’s

job satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?

8. Do you think that your relationship with colleagues has any impacts on your job satisfaction? Why?

9. Do you think personal characteristics like age, gender, race, marital status,

academic qualification, job tenure and job rank have any impacts on job satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?

10. In your perspective do work-life balance being a significant factor that impacting

your job satisfaction and your academic staff’s job satisfaction (for example, time spend for family, joining social activities, doing your hobbies and so on and time to fulfil your job tasks and responsibilities at workplace)?

If yes, can you explain more? If no, can you explain more?

406

TRANSLATION OF KEY PERSON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN MALAY LANGUAGE

1. Berdasarkan kepada situasi terkini di Malaysia terdapat perkembangan sosio-

ekonomi dan politik di dalam sektor pengajian tinggi, misalnya usaha kerajaan meningkatkan dana suntikan bagi menggalakkan aktiviti penyelidikan dan pembangunan (R&D) di universiti, mewujudkan hubungan kolektif yang lebih aktif di antara kerajaan, industri dan universiti, pertambahan kuota pelajar di universiti dan usaha kerajaan dan sektor swasta dalam mewujudkan pengajian tinggi bertaraf dunia. Perkembangan ini dianggap memberi impak yang besar kepada universiti dan para pensyarahnya.

Persoalannya adakah perkembangan ini memberi kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja anda? Jika Ya, kenapa? Jika Tidak, kenapa? 2. Pada pandangan anda, apakah faktor-faktor di dalam organisasi anda yang menyumbang kepada kepuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda (sebagai

contoh gaji yang diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan keputusan, pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan polisi keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda?

3. Pada pandangan anda, apakah faktor-faktor di dalam organisasi anda yang

menyumbang kepada ketidakpuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda (sebagai contoh gaji yang diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan keputusan, Pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan polisi Keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut mempengaruhi ketidakpuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda?

4. Apakah sebenarnya kerja yang dilaksanakan di dalam pekerjaan anda dan staf akademik anda?

5. Apakah komponen dalam kerja yang membuatkan anda dan staf akademik anda

berasa puas?

6. Apakah pula komponen dalam kerja yang dilaksanakan menyumbang kepada ketidakpuasan anda dan staf akademik anda?

7. Pada pendapat anda, adakah peranan anda sebagai penyelia atau pihak pengurusan atasan secara umumnya menjadi faktor yang mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja staf akademik anda? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak, kenapa?

8. Pada pendapat anda, adakah hubungan dengan rakan-rakan sekerja mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda? Kenapa?

9. Adakah anda rasa karektor peribadi seperti umur, jantina, bangsa, kelayakan akademik, jumlah tahun telah bekerja dan menyandang jawatan di organisasi mempunyai sebarang kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak, kenapa?

10. Adakah anda fikir bahawa menyeimbangkan urusan kehidupan seharian (seperti masa untuk bersama keluarga, bersukan, menyertai aktiviti sosial atau membuat hobi) dan urusan pekerjaan mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda? Jika Ya, huraikan kenapa? Jika Tidak, huraikan kenapa?

407

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Based on the current situation in Malaysia there have been many economic and

political developments in the university sector over the past few years, such as increasing government financial support to cultivate research and development (R&D) activities in universities, development of more active collaborations between the government, industry and universities, the added numbers of students quota in each university, and government and private sector’s efforts on building the world class higher education. All these development is assumed to have significant and substantial impacts toward universities and its academic staffs.

From your perspective are these developments having any impacts on your job satisfaction? If Yes, why? If No, why? 2. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job satisfaction

(for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)? Why?

3. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job

dissatisfaction (for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)? Why?

4. What are the key components of the job you do that really make you satisfied?

5. What are the key components of the job you do that make you not satisfied?

6. Do you think that immediate supervisor is generally a substantial factor on job

satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?

7. Do you think that your relationship with colleagues has any impacts on your job satisfaction? Why?

8. Do you think personal characteristics like age, gender, race, marital status,

academic qualification, job tenure and job rank have any impacts on job satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?

9. In your perspective do work-life balance being a significant factor that impacting

your job satisfaction (for example, time spend for family, joining social activities, doing your hobbies and so on and time to fulfil your job tasks and responsibilities at workplace)?

If yes, can you explain more? If no, can you explain more?

408

TRANSLATION OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN MALAY LANGUAGE

1. Berdasarkan kepada situasi terkini di Malaysia terdapat perkembangan sosio-

ekonomi dan politik di dalam sektor pengajian tinggi, misalnya usaha kerajaan meningkatkan dana suntikan bagi menggalakkan aktiviti penyelidikan dan pembangunan (R&D) di universiti, mewujudkan hubungan kolektif yang lebih aktif di antara kerajaan, industri dan universiti, pertambahan kuota pelajar di universiti dan usaha kerajaan dan sektor swasta dalam mewujudkan pengajian tinggi bertaraf dunia. Perkembangan ini dianggap memberi impak yang besar kepada universiti dan para pensyarahnya.

Persoalannya adakah perkembangan ini memberi kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja anda? Jika Ya, kenapa? Jika Tidak, kenapa? 2. Pada pandangan anda, apakah faktor-faktor di dalam organisasi anda yang menyumbang kepada kepuasan kerja anda (sebagai contoh gaji yang diperoleh,

kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan keputusan, pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan polisi keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda?

3. Pada pandangan anda, apakah faktor-faktor di dalam organisasi anda yang

menyumbang kepada ketidakpuasan kerja anda (sebagai contoh gaji yang diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan keputusan, Pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan polisi Keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut mempengaruhi ketidakpuasan kerja anda?

4. Apakah komponen dalam kerja yang yang anda laksanakan yang membuatkan

anda rasa puas? 5. Apakah pula komponen dalam kerja yang dilaksanakan menyumbang kepada

ketidakpuasan anda? 6. Pada pendapat anda, adakah penyelia atau pihak pengurusan atasan secara

umumnya menjadi faktor kepada kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak, kenapa?

7. Pada pendapat anda, adakah hubungan dengan rakan-rakan sekerja

mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda? Kenapa? 8. Adakah anda rasa karektor peribadi seperti umur, jantina, bangsa, kelayakan

akademik, jumlah tahun bekerja dan menyandang jawatan di organisasi mempunyai sebarang kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak, kenapa?

9. Adakah anda fikir bahawa menyeimbangkan urusan kehidupan seharian (seperti

masa untuk bersama keluarga, bersukan, menyertai aktiviti sosial atau membuat hobi) dan urusan pekerjaan mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda?

Jika Ya, huraikan kenapa? Jika Tidak, huraikan kenapa?

409

Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted From the Thesis

Mohd Noor, K. 2007, ‘An Overture Of Job Satisfaction’, in Khalid, M.Y., Ahmad, Y,

Khairunneezam, M.N. and Zainudin, Z, 2007, Muzakarah Dakwah dan

Pengurusan, Nilai: Islamic Science University of Malaysia.

Mohd Noor, K. 2007, ‘Haluan Dan Cabaran IPT Di Era Pasca Kemerdekaan’, in Alias,

M. Hashim, M.S., Hamzah, A., Ahmad, S.B.S and Sipon, S. 2007, Koleksi

Rencana Merdeka, Nilai: Islamic Science University of Malaysia.

Mohd Noor, K., Stanton, P. and Young, S. 2009, ‘Perceptions Of Malaysian Higher

Education Academics Concerning Their Job Satisfaction And Organizational

Commitment’, Proceedings Of The 14th

Asia Pacific Management Conference,

Surabaya: University Airlangga.

Mohd Noor, K., Stanton, P. and Young, S. 2009, ‘Work-Life Balance and Job

Satisfaction: A Study among Academics in Malaysian Higher Education

Institutions’, Proceedings Of The 14th

Asia Pacific Management Conference,

Surabaya: University Airlangga.

Mohd Noor, K. 2010, ‘Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Intention to Leave

Among Academics in Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions’,

Proceedings of the International Economic and Business Management Conference

2010, Pahang, Malaysia: UNITEN and Assumption University of Thailand.

Mohd Noor, K. 2010, ‘Relationship Do Academics Satisfied With Their Job? A Study in

Malaysian Public Higher Educational Institutions’, Proceedings of the

International Economic and Business Management Conference 2010, Pahang,

Malaysia: UNITEN and Assumption University of Thailand.

Mohd Noor, K. 2011, ‘Work-Life Balance and Intention to Leave among Academics in

Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions’, International Journal of

Business and Social Science, 2, 11, pp.240-248.

Mohd Noor, K. and Amat, M.I. 2012, ‘Keseimbangan Kerja-Kehidupan dan Kepuasan

Kerja Ahli Akademik di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia’, in Ghani, Z.A.,

Ramly, R.M., Jailani, M.R.M., and Khalid, M.Y. 2012, Kepimpinan Dan

Pengurusan: Dakwah, Media Dan Ilmu, Nilai: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

Mohd Noor, K., Junoh, A.M., Rahman, S.H.A., Othman, S. and Kasmani, M.F. 2012,

‘Communication Satisfaction among Academics in Malaysian Ivory Towers’, in

Mohd Noor, K., Marjuni, K.N., Ahmad, Z.A., Kasmani, M.F., Zumrah, A.R.,

Ghani, Z.A. and Rahman, S.H.A., 2012, Proceeding of the Regional Seminar on

Islamic Higher Education Institutions 2012 (SeIPTI2012), Nilai: Faculty of

Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

410

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul Rahman, S.N. 2001, 'The relationship between job satisfaction and work

performance: A study at Wodard Textiles Mills Sdn. Bhd. Penang', Master thesis,

Technology University of Malaysia, Johor Bahru.

Abdulsalam, D. and Mawoli, M.A. 2012, ‘Motivation and Job Performance of Academic

Staff of State Universities in Nigeria: The Case of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida

University, Lapai, Niger State’, International Journal of Business and

Management; 7, 14, pp. 142-148.

Abdullah, M. 1992, 'Factors relating to job satisfaction of secondary school principals',

Master thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor.

Abu Bakar, H. 1985, 'An Analysis of Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff of

Universities in Malaysia (Faculty Motivation, Morale)', Phd thesis, Ohio

University.

Adams, J.S. 1965, Inequity in social exchange, Advance in Experimental Social

Psychology, 62, pp. 335-343.

Adekola, B. 2012, ‘The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction: A

Study of Employees at Nigerian Universities’, International Journal of Human

Resource Studies, 2, 2, pp. 1-17.

Ahmad, R.H. 1998, 'Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: past, present

and future', Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 5, pp. 462-475.

Ahsan, N., Abdullah, Z. David, Y.G.F. & Alam, S.S. 2009, ‘A Study of Job Stress on

Job Satisfaction among University Staff in Malaysia: Empirical Study’, European

Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1, pp. 121-131.

Aihara, A. 2009, ‘Paradoxes Of Higher Education Reforms: Implications On The

Malaysian Middle Class’, IJAPS, 5, 1, pp. 81-113.

Akpofure, R-R, Ikhifa, O.G, Imide, O.I and Okoyoko, I.E. 2006, 'Job Satisfaction among

Educators in Colleges of Education in Southern Nigeria', Journal of Applied

Sciences, 6, 5, pp. 1094-1098.

Aktaruzzaman, M., Clement, C.K. And Hasan, M.F. 2011, ‘Job Satisfaction Among

Teachers Of Technical Training Centers (T.T.Cs.) In Bangladesh’, Academic

Research International 1, 2, pp. 375-382.

Alam, M. M. and Mohammad, J. F. 2010, ‘Level of Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave

among Malaysian Nurses’, Business Intelligent Journal, 3, pp. 123-137.

Ali, A. 2003, 'Engaging with economic development through the commercialisation of

research: The Malaysian Experience', paper presented to ACU General

Conference, Queen's University Belfast, UK, <http://www.acu.ac.uk/

aboutacu/belfast/talkpdf/spkr16-1063032682.pdf>. (5 March 2008).

Ali, S.M., Shaharudin, M.R. and Anuar, A. 2012, The Association between Job Positions,

Work Experience and Career Satisfaction: The Case of Malaysian’s Academic

Staff Asian Social Science, 8, 10, pp. 35-44.

Anderson, V. 2004, Research Methods in Human Resource Management, London:

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Arif, M.I. , Iqbal, M.Z., Islam, Z. U. and Hussain, M. 2012, ‘HRM Practices for

Sustainable workforce: Perceived Satisfaction level of University Teachers’,

International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2, 4, pp. 211-220.

411

Arshad, A. 2007, 'Faedah berkongsi kepakaran universiti [transl. Benefits of sharing

universities expertises]', Utusan Malaysia, 20 June 2007.

Artz, B. 2010, 'Fringe benefits and job satisfaction', International Journal of Manpower,

31, 6, pp. 626-644.

Atif, A. Richards, D. And Bilgin, A. 2012, Estimating Non-Response Bias in a Web-

based Survey of Technology Acceptance: A Case Study of Unit Guide Information

Systems, Geelong, Proceeding of the 23rd

Australasian Conference on Information

Systems.

Badawi, A.A. 2007, ‘The 2007 Budget Speech: Implementing the National Mission

Towards Achieving the National Vision’, Prime Ministry Office, Malaysia.

Banerjee, D. and Perrucci, C.C. 2010, ‘Job Satisfaction: Impact of Gender, Race, Worker

Qualifications, and Work Context’, Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace,

20, pp. 39–58.

Barnett, A.M., Marsh, H.W. and Craven, R.G. 2005, ‘What type of school leadership

satisfies teachers? A mixed method approach to teachers' perceptions of

satisfaction’, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF)

Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Australia, <http://0-

search.informit.com.au.alpha2. latrobe.edu.au/fullText; dn=200605280;res=

APAFT>. (5 May 2008).

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. 1986, 'The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations',

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Barrett, L. and Yates, P. 2002, 'Oncology/haematology nurses: a study of job satisfaction,

burnout, and intention to leave the specialty', Australian Health Review, 25, 3.

Bartram, T., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., Leggat, S.G. and Stanton P. 2012, ‘Do Perceived

High Performance Work Systems Influence the Relationship between Emotional

Labour, Burnout and Intention to Leave? A Study of Australian Nurses’. Journal

of Advanced Nursing, 00(0), 000–000.

Bartram, T., Stanton, P., Leggat, S., Casimir, G. and Fraser, B. 2007, ‘Lost in translation:

exploring the link between HRM and performance in healthcare’, Human

Resource Management Journal, 17, 1, pp. 21-41.

Bashir, M., Jianqiao, L., Jun, Z., Ghazanfar, F. and Khan, M.M. 2011, ‘The Role of

Demographic Factors in the Relationship between High Performance Work

System and Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Approach’, International

Journal of Business and Social Science , 2, 18, pp. 207-218.

Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. 1984, 'A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of

Organisational Commitment', Academy of Management Journal, 27, 1, pp. 95-

112.

Beaujean, A.A. 2008, 'Mediation, Moderation, and the Study of Individual Differences',

in Osborne, J.W. (ed), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Thousand Oak:

Sage Publications, pp. 422-442.

Beauregard, T.A. and Henry, L.C. 2009, 'Making the link between work-life balance

practices and organizational performance', Human Resource Management Review,

19, pp. 9-22.

412

Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. 1976, 'Relationship of Stress to Individually and

Organizationally Valued States: Higher Order Needs as a Moderator', Journal of

Applied Psychology, 61, 1, pp. 41-47.

Bender, K.A., Donohue, S.M. and Heywood, J.S. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction of the Highly

Educated: The Role of Gender, Academic Tenure, and Comparison Income',

Oxford Economic Papers, 57, pp. 479-496.

Bergman, MM (ed) 2008, Advances in Mixed Methods Research, Los Angeles, SAGE

Publications.

Biggs, D. and Swailes, S. 2006, 'Relations, commitment and satisfaction in agency

workers and permanent workers', Employee Relations, 28, 2, pp. 130-143.

Bilimoria, D., Perry, S.R., Liang, X., Stoller, E.P., Higgins, P. and Taylor, C. 2006, 'How

Do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job Satisfaction? The Roles of

Perceived Institutional Leadership and Mentoring and their Mediating Processes',

Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 355-365.

Bittner, N.P and O’Connor, M. 2011, ‘Focus on Retention: Identifying Barriers to Nurse

Faculty Satisfaction’, Nursing Education Perspectives, 33, 4, pp. 251-254.

Boscainos, P.J., Sapkas, G., Stilianessi, E., Prouskas, K. and Papadakis, S.A. 2003,

'Greek Versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires',

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 411, pp. 40-53.

Bourque, L.B. and Fielder, E.P. 2003, How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail

Surveys, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Briggs, S. 2005, 'Changing roles and competencies of academics', Active Learning in

Higher Education, 6, 3, pp. 256-268.

Broers, C.M. 2005, 'Career and Family: The Role of Social Support', Griffith University.

Brown, D. 2008, Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction in Higher Education, The Key

to Greater Productivity and Retention of a Qualified Workforce, Saarbrucken:

VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.

Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. 2005, 'The impact of NPM on the job satisfaction of a

range of Australian public sector employees', Asia Pacific Journal of Human

Resources, 43, 2, pp. 289-304.

Bryman, A. (ed) 2006, Mixed Methods, Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Burke, R. J., Burgess, Z. and Oberrlaid, F. 2004, 'Do Male Psychologists Benefit from

Organisational Values Supporting Work-Personal Life Balance?' Equal

Opportunities International, 23, 1/2, pp. 97-107.

Butt, G. and Lance, A. 2005, ‘Secondary teacher Workload and Job Satisfaction, Do

Successful Strategies for Change Exist?’ Educational Management and

Administration and Leadership, Vol 33 (4), pp. 401-422.

Carlier, S.I., Llorente, C.L. and Grau Grau, M. 2012, ’Comparing work-life balance in

Spanish and Latin-American countries’, European Journal of Training and

Development, 36, 2, pp. 286-307.

Callister, R.R. 2006, 'The Impact of Gender and Department Climate on Job Satisfaction

and Intentions to Quit for Faculty in Science and Engineering Fields ', Journal of

Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 367-375.

Capon, C. 2000, Understanding Organisational Context, Essex, Pearson Education

Limited.

413

Castiglia, B. 2006, 'The Impact of Changing Culture in Higher Education on the Person-

Organisation Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of College

Faculty', Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10, 2, pp. 23-44.

Castle, N. G. 2006. ‘An instrument to measure job satisfaction of nursing home

administrators’. BMC Medical Research Methodology, <http://www.

biomedcentral.com> (25 May 2007).

Chen, S-H., Yang, C-C., Shiau, J-Y. and Wang, H-H. 2006, 'The development of an

employee satisfaction model for higher education', The TQM Magazine, 18, 5, pp.

484-500.

Ch’ng, H.K., Chong, W.K., and Nakesvari, M. 2010, ‘The Satisfaction Level of Penang

Private Colleges Lecturers’, International Journal of Trade, Economics and

Finance, 1, 2, pp.168-172.

Chua, C. 2004, 'Perception of Quality in Higher Education', paper presented to Quality in

a time of change: proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004,

Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.

Clark, A.E. 1998, 'Measures of Job Satisfaction: What Makes a Good Job? Evidence

from OECD Countries, ' paper presented to Labour Market and Social Policy,

Occasional Papers No.34, France.

Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. 2002, A Student's Guide to Methodology: Justifying

Enquiry, London: SAGE Publications.

Coakes, S.J., Steed, L. and Ong, C. 2010, SPSS Version 17.0 for Windows: Analysis

without Anguish, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons.

Cooper, R. 1973, 'How Job Motivate', in Weir, M.(ed), Job Satisfaction, Challenge and

Response in Modern Britain, Glasgow: William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd.

Cox, S. 2005, 'Global Management Education: A Perspective from the Dean of Lancaster

University Management School', Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 42, 1/2,

pp. 3-6.

Crossman, A. and Abou-Zaki, B. 2003, Job satisfaction and employee performance of

Lebanese banking staff. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 4, pp. 368-376.

Dator, J. 2004, 'Universities without ‘Quality’ and Quality without ‘Universities’', paper

presented to Quality in a time of change: proceedings of the Australian

Universities Quality Forum 2004, Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.

DeCuir-Gunby, J.T. 2008, 'Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences', in JW

Osborne (ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Thousand Oak: Sage

Publications.

Deery, M. 2008, 'Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies',

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 7, pp. 792-

806.

Deery, M. And Jago, L. 2009, ‘Talent Management, Work-Life Balance and retention

Strategies’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20.

7. Pp 792-806.

DeMato, D.S. 2001, 'Job Satisfaction Among Elementary School Counsellors in Virginia:

Thirteen Years Later', PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Dessler, G., Griffiths, J., Llyod-Walker, B. and Williams, A. 1999, Human Resource

Management, Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

414

Din, M.S. 2001, 'Impact of the economic crisis on higher education: the case of

University Utara, Malaysia', paper presented to Impact of the economic crisis on

higher education in East Asia: Country experiences, Paris.

Disney, M. 2004, 'Divided we stand - a new deal for education?; [Supplement Edition]',

Malaysian Business, Kuala Lumpur.

Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. 2006, 'Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK

university', Women in Management Review, 21, 3, pp. 241-259.

Donnelly, J.E. 2006, 'What matters to advisers: Exploring the current state of academic

adviser job satisfaction', PhD Thesis, University of Cincinnati.

Dundas, K. 1994, Managing human resources, Melbourne: Thomas Nelson.

Dundas, K. 2008, 'Work-Life Balance: There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution', in

O'Rourke, K (ed), Managing Matters, Graduate College of Management,

Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Summer (3), pp. 7-8.

Eberhardt, B.J., Pooyan, A. and Moser, S.B. 1995, 'Moderators of the Relationship

between Job Satisfaction and Nurses' Intention to Quit', The International Journal

of Organizational Analysis, 3, 4 (October), pp. 394-406.

Economic Planning Unit. 2006, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, Prime Minister's

Department of Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Economic Planning Unit, 2007, Chapter 5: Developing Malaysia into a Knowledge-

Based Economy, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, Prime Minister's Department

of Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

‘Education watch; [Supplement Edition]’ 2005, Malaysian Business, Nov 16, 2005, p.10.

'Education without borders: International trade in education; [Supplement Edition]' 2005,

Malaysian Business, 16 November 2005.

Eikhof, D.R., Warhurst, C. and Haunschild, A. 2007, 'Introduction: What work? What

life? What balance? Critical reflections on the work-life balance debate ',

Employee Relations, 29, 4, pp. 325-33.

Einspruch, E.L. 1998, An Introductory Guide to SPSS for Windows, Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications.

Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. 2005, 'The value of online surveys', Internet Research, 15, 2,

pp. 195-219.

Fairchild, S., Tobias, S., Corcoran, S., Djukic, M., Kovner, C. and Noguera, P. 2012,

‘White and Black Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: Does Relational Demography

Matter?’, Urban Education, 47(1) 170–197.

Falkenburg, K. and Schyns, B. 2007, 'Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and

withdrawal behaviours', Management Research News, 30, 10, pp. 708-23.

Feldman, D.C. and Arnold, H.J. 1983, Managing individual and group behavior in

organizations, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fink, A. 1995a, How to Analyze Survey Data, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Fink, A. 1995b, The Survey Book, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Fink A. 2003, How to Sample in Surveys, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications.

Firdaus, A. 2006, 'Measuring service quality in higher education: HedPERF versus

SERVPERF', Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24, 1, pp. 31-47.

415

Forsyth, S. and Polzer-Debruyne, A. 2007, 'The organisational pay-offs for perceived

work–life balance support', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45, 1, pp.

113-123.

Fowler, G. 2005, 'An analysis of higher education staff attitudes in a dynamic

environment ', Tertiary Education and Management, 11, pp. 183-197.

Freebody, P. 2003, Qualitative research in education : interaction and practice, London:

SAGE.

Gabbidon, S.L. and Higgins, G.E. 2012, ‘The Life of an Academic: Examining the

Correlates of Job Satisfaction Among Criminology/Criminal Justice Faculty’,

Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, pp. 669–681.

Gay, L.R. 1987, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 3rd

edition, Toronto: Merril Publishing Company.

Gay, L.R. and Diehl, P.L. 1992, Research Methods for Business and Management, New

York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

‘Ghauth eyes world-class status’, 2005, Malaysian Business, 16 November 2005, p.6.

Ghazi, S.R., Ali, R., Shahzada, G. and Israr, M. 2010, 'University Teachers’ Job

Satisfaction in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan', Asian Social

Science, 6, 1, pp. 188-192.

Goff, D.G. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction of Community College Academic Deans', Unpublished

PhD thesis, University of South Florida.

Goh, P.S-C. 2005, 'Perceptions of Learning Environments, Learning Approaches, and

Learning Outcomes: A Study of Private Higher Education Students in Malaysia

Twinning Programmes', University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Gomez, E.T. and Jomo, K.S. 1997, Malaysia’s Political Economy: Politics, Patronage

and Profits, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Graham, M.W. and Messner, P.E. 1998, 'Principals and Job Satisfaction', International

Journal of Educational Management, 12, 5, pp. 196-202.

Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S. and Llanes, V.A. 2003, 'Branding universities in Asian Market',

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 2, pp. 108-.20.

Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M. and Shaw, J.D. 2003, 'The relation between work-family

balance and quality of life', Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, pp. 510-531.

Grisham, T. 2009, 'The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted

topics', International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 1, pp. 112-

130.

Gruneberg, M.M. 1976, 'Introduction', in Gruneberg, M.M. (ed.), Job Satisfaction- A

Reader, London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., Afifi, W.A. 2007. Close encounters: communication in

relationships, Thousand Oak, California: SAGE Publication

Guest, D.E. 2002, 'Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance', Social Science

Information, 41, 255, pp. 255-279.

Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Williams, P. 2002, 'Online versus offline

research: implications for evaluating digital media', Aslib Proceedings, 54, 4, pp.

229-239.

Haar, J.M., Spell, C.S. and O'Driscoll, M.P. 2005, 'Exploring work-family backlash in a

public organisation', International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 7,

pp. 604-614.

416

Hagedorn, L.S. 2000, 'Conceptualizing Faculty Job Satisfaction: Components, Theories,

and Outcomes', in Hagedorn, L.S. (ed), What Contributes to Job Satisfaction

among Faculty and Staff, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hagen, R. 2002, 'Globalization, university transformation and economic regeneration: A

UK case study of public/private sector partnership ', International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 15, 3, pp. 204-218.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. 2010, Multivariate data

analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.

Haque, M., Karim A.N.M, Muqtadir, A. and Anam, S. Dimensions of Job Satisfaction of

Library Professionals: A Qualitative Exploration, International Journal of

Business and Social Research, 2, 5, pp. 46-61.

Hashim, J. 2012, ‘Academic excellence as selection criteria among Malaysian

employers’, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 2, 1, pp. 63-73.

Hassan, A. 2001, 'Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in Malaysia', paper

presented to Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in East Asia:

Country experiences, Paris.

Hassan, A. and Hashim, J. 2011, ‘Role of organizational justice in determining work

outcomes of national and expatriate academic staff in Malaysia’, International

Journal of Commerce and Management, 21, 1, pp. 82-93.

Hassan, G. 1994, 'Job satisfaction among University Putra Malaysia security guards',

Master thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor.

‘Help academia to grow and excel’, 2006, [Supplement Edition]. Malaysian Business, 16

April 2006, p.4.

Heraty, N., Morley, M.J. and Cleveland, J.N. 2008, 'Complexities and challenges in the

work-family interface', Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 3, pp. 209-214.

Herzberg, F. 1971, Work and the Nature of Man, London: Staple Press.

Herzberg, F. 1976, 'One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?' in Gruneberg,

M.M. (ed), Job Satisfaction- A Reader, London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Hill, H. 2000, 'Review of: Restructuring the Malaysian economy; Development and

human resources', Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 3, pp. 680-681.

Ho, C-C. 2006, 'A Study of the Relationships between Work Values, Job Involvement

and Organisational Commitment Among Taiwanese Nurses', PhD Thesis,

Queensland University of Technology.

Hosie, P.J. 2003, 'A study of the relationships between manager's job well-being, intrinsic

job satisfaction and performance', Phd Thesis, The University of Western

Australia.

Houston, D., Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. 2006, 'Academic staff workloads and job

satisfaction: expectations and values in academe', Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management, 28, 1, pp. 17-30.

Howard, W.G., Donofrio, H.H. and Boles, J.S. 2004, 'Inter-domain work-family, family-

work conflict and police work satisfaction', Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies and Management, 27, 3, pp. 380-395.

Howze, P.C. and Dalrymple, C. 2004, 'Consensus without all the meetings: using the

Delphi method to determine course content for library instruction', Reference

Services Review, 32, 2, pp. 174-184.

417

Huang, T-C., Lawler, J. and Lei, C-Y. 2007, 'The Effects of Quality of Work Life on

Commitment and Turnover Intention', Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 6, pp.

735-750.

Hunt, J.W. and Saul, P.N. 1975, The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in

males and females, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 4, pp. 690-702.

Iqbal, A., Kokash, H. A. and Al-Oun, S. 2011, ‘The Impact Assessment Of Demographic

Factors On Faculty Commitment In The Kingdom of Saudi Arabian Universities’,

Journal of College Teaching and Learning; Feb 2011; 8, 2, pp 1-13.

Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S.L. 2006, ‘Using Mixed-Methods Sequential

Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice’, Field Methods, 18, pp.3-20.

Iverson, R.D. and Buttigieg, D.M. 1999, 'Affective, Normative and Continuance

Commitment: can the 'right kind' of commitment be managed?' Journal of

Management Studies, 36, 3, pp. 307-333.

Jang, E.E., McDougall, D.E., Pollon, D., Herbert, M. and Russell, P. 2008, 'Integrative

Mixed Methods Data Analytic Strategies in Research on School Success in

Challenging Circumstances', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, p. 221-231.

Joiner, T.A. and Bakalis, S. 2006, 'The antecedents of organizational commitment: the

case of Australian casual academics', International Journal of Educational

Management, 20, 6, pp. 439-452.

Jones, L. and Page, D. 1987, 'Theories of Motivation', Education and Training,

May/June, pp. 12-16.

Jose, P.E. 2008, ModGraph-I: A Programme to compute cell means for the graphical

display of moderation analyses: the internet version, <http://www.victoria.ac.nz

/psyc/paul-jose-files/modgraph/modgraph.php> (5 December 2009).

'Kakitangan swasta dibebani tugas, gaji rendah [transl. Maximum Taskloads, Low Pay

for Private Employees] ', 2007, Berita Harian, 8 June 2007.

Kalton, G. 1983, Introduction to Survey Sampling, Quantitative Applications in the

Social Sciences, Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

Kamsari, S.A. 2007, '1.3 juta pelajar IPTA, IPTS menjelang 2010 [transl. 1.3 Million

Students in Public and Private Higher Education Institutions in 2010]', Utusan

Malaysia, 11 Jun 2007.

Kanji, G.K. and Malik, A.T.A. 1998, 'Total quality management and higher education in

Malaysia', Total Quality Management, 9, 4/5, pp. 130-132.

Karatepe, M.O. and Tekinkus, M. 2006, 'The effects of work-family conflict, emotional

exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees',

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24, 3, pp. 173-193.

Keong, C.K. and Sheehan, B. 2004, 'An Assessment of the Multidimensionality of

Organisational Commitment in Malaysia', Malaysian Management Review, 39, 2.

Pp. 34-46.

Khalid, S., Irshad M.Z. and Mahmood, B. 2012, ‘Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff:

A Comparative Analysis between Public and Private Sector Universities of

Punjab, Pakistan’, International Journal of Business and Management, 7, 1, pp.

126-136.

Kiessling, T. and Harvey, M. 2005, 'Strategic global human resource management

research in the twenty-first century: an endorsement of the mixed-method

418

research methodology', The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 16, 1, pp. 222-245.

Kim, D., Twombly, S. and Wolf-Wendel, L. 2008, 'Factors Predicting Community

College Faculty Satisfaction with Instructional Autonomy', Community College

Review, 35, 3, pp. 159-180.

Kim, T.L. 1995, 'University in the context of national development: A case study of

Malaysian academic's perceptions', Phd Thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton , B. and Swart, J. 2005, 'Satisfaction with

HR practices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all',

Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 4, pp. 9-29.

Klein, J.J. 2007, 'The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Leadership Practices: A

Survey-Based Analysis of Full-time Business Faculty in The Wisconsin Technical

College System', PhD Thesis, Capella University.

Knight, J. and Morshidi, S. 2011, ‘The complexities and challenges of regional education

hubs: focus on Malaysia’, High Education, 62, pp. 593-606.

Konting, M.M. 1993, Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan [transl. Research Methodology in

Education], Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.

Koustelios, A.D. 2001, 'Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek teachers',

International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 7, pp. 354-358.

‘Kurikulum universiti awam dikaji semula setiap 3 tahun [transl. public universities

curricula will be reviewed every three years]’, 2007, Utusan Malaysia, 11 June

2007.

Küskü, F. 2003, 'Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic and

administrative staff in Turkey', Career Development International, 8,7, pp. 347-

356.

Labatmediene, L., Endriulaitiene, A. and Gustainiene, L. 2007, 'Individual correlates of

organisational commitment and intention to leave the organisation', Baltic Journal

of Management, 2, 2, pp. 196-212.

Lambert, E.G. and Paoline, E.A. 2008, 'The Influence of Individual, Job, and

Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff Job Stress, Job Satisfaction,

and Organizational Commitment', Criminal Justice Review, 33, pp. 541-564.

Lasanowski, V. 2009, International student mobility: Status report. London: UK: The

Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Legg, J.R.J. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction at Selected University Licensed CPB Qualified Public

Radio Stations: An Application of Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory', Ohio

University.

Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H. and Briers, G.E. 2001, ‘Handling Nonresponse In Social

Science Research’, Journal of Agricultural Education, 42, 4, pp. 43-53.

Litwin, M.S. 1995, How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications.

Lo, M. and Ramayah, T. 2011, ‘Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysian SMEs’,

Journal of Management Development, 30, 4, pp. 427-440.

Locke, E.A. 1976, 'The nature and causes of job satisfaction', in Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.

419

Lok, P. 1997, 'The Influence of Organisational Culture, Subculture, Leadership Style and

Job Satisfaction on Organisational Commitment', Unpublished PhD Thesis,

University of Technology, Sydney.

Lowenstein, S.R., Fernandez, G. and Crane, L.A. 2007, ‘Medical school faculty

discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers’, BMC

Medical Education, 7, 37, pp. 1-8.

Lynch, B. P. and Verdin, J. A. 1983, Job Satisfaction in Libraries: Relationships of the

Work Itself, Age, Sex, Occupational Group, Tenure, Supervisory Level, Career

Commitment, and Library Department, Library Quarterly, 53, pp.434-447.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. 2002, 'A

Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable

Effects', Psychological Methods, 7, 1, pp. 83-104.

Mahmud, Z. 2007, 'Tekanan Terhadap IPTA [transl. Pressures on Malaysian Public

Universities]', Utusan Malaysia, 5 April 2007.

Malaysian Qualification Agency, The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher

Education Institutions (SETARA’11), http://www.mqa.gov.my/SETARA11 (25

February 2013).

‘Malaysia steps up to the challenge’, 2005, Asia Today International, 01/10/2005 p.49.

Malik, E. and Naeem, B. 2011, ‘Role Of Perceived Organizational Justice In Job

Satisfaction: Evidence From Higher Education Institutions Of Pakistan’,

Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3, 8, 662-673.

Mamiseishvili, K. 2010, ‘Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Perceptions of

Foreign-Born Faculty at Public 2-Year Institutions’, Community College Review

2011 39, pp 26-45.

Marcinkus, W.C., Whelan-Berry, K.S. and Gordon, J.R. 2007, 'The relationship of social

support to the work-family balance and work outcomes of midlife women',

Women in Management Review, 22, 2, pp. 86-111.

Markovits, Y. and Davis, A.J. 2007, 'Organizational Commitment Profiles and Job

Satisfaction among Greek Private and Public Sector Employees', International

Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7, 1, pp. 77-99.

Maslow, A.H. 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.

May-Chiun, L. and Ramayah, T. 2011, ‘Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysian

SMEs’, Journal of Management Development, 30, 4, pp. 427-440.

McComb, E.D. 2006, 'An Evaluation of the Three-Component Model of Occupational

Commitment Among New Zealand General Practitioners', Otago Management

Graduate Review, 4, pp. 67-87.

McDowell, I. 2006, Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires,

Third Edition ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

McGregor, D. 1987, The Human Side of Enterprise, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Meade, A.W., Watson, A.M. and Kroustalis, C.M. 2007, ‘Assessing Common Methods

Bias in Organizational Research’, paper presented at the 22nd

Annual Meeting of

the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. 1997, Commitment in the workplace: Theory, Research and

Application, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

http://www.mqa.gov.my/SETARA11%20(25

420

Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. 1998, 'Examination of the combined effects of

work values and early work experiences on organisational commitment', Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 19, 1, pp. 29-52.

Miner, J.B. 2005. Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and

Leadership, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.

Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2012, National Education Philosophy, <http://www.

moe.gov.my/tayang.php?laman =falsafahandbhs=en> (21 October 2012).

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012a, Macro Data, <http://www.mohe.gov.my

/statistik_v3/stat1.php> (21 October 2012).

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b, Macro Data, <http://www.mohe.gov.my/

web_statistik/statistik_pdf_2008_05/data_makro_1-2.pdf> (10 February 2012).

Mohamad, M. 2002, 'Education, Sowing the Seeds of Great Minds', in M Yeoh (ed.), 21st

Century Malaysia, Challenges and Strategies in Attaining Vision 2020, London:

ASEAN Academic Press Ltd.

Mohamed, M. 2006, 'Help academia to grow and excel; [Supplement Edition]',

Malaysian Business, 16 April 2006.

Mohd Noor, K. 2004, ‘The implementation of MS ISO 9002 Quality System in the

context of teaching and learning process and job satisfaction among teachers in

Gemereh Segamat Secondary School’, Master Thesis, Johor Bahru: Technology

University of Malaysia.

Mohd Noor, K. 2007, 'Mengintegrasi pensyarah, industri [transl. Integrating academics

and the industry]', Utusan Malaysia, 14 Jun 2007.

Moore, F. 2007, 'Work-life balance: contrasting managers and workers in an MNC',

Employee Relations, 29, 4, pp. 385-399.

Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J. and

Thomas, H. 2006, 'Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and

implications', Qualitative Research, 6, 1, pp. 45–59.

Morgan, D.L. 2007, 'Pragmatism as a Philosophical Foundation for Mixed Methods

Research', in VLP Clark and JW Creswell (eds), The Mixed Methods Reader,

California: Sage Publications, pp. 27-65.

Morris, D., Yaakob, A. and Wood, G. 2004, 'Attitudes towards pay and promotion in the

Malaysian higher educational sector', Employee Relations, 26, 2, pp. 137-50.

Morshidi, S. 2006, ‘Transnational higher education in Malaysia: Balancing benefits and

concerns through regulations’, RIHE International Publication Series, Japan:

Hiroshima University.

Muller-Camen, M. and Salzgeber, S. 2005, 'Changes in Academic Work and the Chair

Regime: The Case of German Business Administration Academics', Organization

Studies, 26, 2, pp. 271-290.

Murray, R.A. 1999, 'Job Satisfaction of Professional and Paraprofessional Library Staff at

the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill', unpublished PhD Thesis,

University of North Carolina.

Murrells, T., Robinson, S. and Griffiths, P. 2008, 'Job satisfaction trends during nurses'

early career', BMC Nursing, 7, 7, pp. 1-13.

Mustapha, M. and Daud, N. 2012, ‘Perceived Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,

Career Commitment and Turnover Intention of Knowledge Workers’,

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 15, pp. 157-165.

421

The National Education System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007, <http://www.studymalaysia.

com /education/edusystem.php?fn=high-tertiary_lvl>. (27 March 2007).

Nasurdin, A.M., Ramayah, T. and Hemdi, M.A. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction and Turnover

Intentions: Is Commitment a Mediator?' paper presented to 2nd International

Conference on Business and Economics: Capitalising the Potential of the Asian

Integrated Market, Padang, Indonesia, 28-30 July 2005.

Nawab, S. and Bhatti, K.K. 2011, ‘Influence of Employee Compensation on

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Case Study of Educational

Sector of Pakistan’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 8, pp. 25-

32. Neese, W. T. 2011, The Impact of Department Restructuring on Job Satisfaction for

Marketing Faculty, ‘The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge’,

17, 1, pp 69-76.

Nelson, B. 2002a, Higher Education at the Crossroads: An Overview Paper, The

Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.

Nelson, B. 2002b, Meeting the Challenges: the Governance and Management of

Universities, The Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.

Nelson, B. 2002c, Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship, The

Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.

Newby, J. E. 1999, ‘Job Satisfaction of Middle School Principals in Virginia’, PhD

Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Ng, L. 2005, 'Education watch; [Supplement Edition]', Malaysian Business, Nov 16,

2005.

Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. 2008, 'Toward a Further Understanding of the

Relationships between Perceptions of Support and Work Attitudes, A Meta-

Analysis', Group and Organization Management, 33, 3, pp. 243-268.

Nikandrou, I., Panayotopoulou, L. and Apospori, E. 2008, 'The impact of individual and

organizational characteristics on work-family conflict and career outcomes',

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 5, pp. 576-598.

Noblet, A., Cooper, C., McWilliams, J. and Rudd, A. 2007, 'Wellbeing, Job Satisfaction

and Commitment among Australian Community Health Workers: The

Relationship with Working Conditions', Australian Journal of Primary Health,

13, 3, pp. 40-48.

Noordin, F. and Jusoff, K. 2009, 'Levels of Job Satisfaction amongst Malaysian

Academic Staff', Asian Social Science, 5, 5, pp. 122-128.

O'Leary, J. 2006, 'The Time Higher: World University Rankings', The Times Higher

Education Supplement, pp. 1-16.

O’Malley, M. 2000, Creating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented

Employees by Building Relationship That Last, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Oii, J. 2005, 'Tackle the core issue', Malaysian Business, 1 July 2005.

Okpara, J.O. 2006, 'Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness in pay,

promotion, and job satisfaction in a sub-Saharan African economy', Women in

Management Review, 21, 3, pp. 224-240.

Okpara, J.O., Squillace, M., and Erondu, E.A. 2005, ‘Gender differences and job

satisfaction: study of university teachers in the United States’, Women in

Management Review, 20, 3, pp. 177-190.

422

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Johnson, R.B. 2006, 'Type of Legitimation (Validity) in Mixed

Methods Research', in Plano-Clark, V.L. and Creswell, J.W. (eds), The Mixed

Methods Reader, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Osborne, J.W. 2008, Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Los Angeles: SAGE

Publication.

Oshagbemi, T. 1997a, 'Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Higher Education',

Education and Training, 39, 9, pp. 22-31.

Oshagbemi, T. 1997b, 'Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers', Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 12, 1, pp. 27-39.

Oshagbemi, T. 1999a, 'Academics and Their Managers: A Comparative Study in Job

Satisfaction', Personnel Review, 28, 1 and 2, pp. 108-123.

Oshagbemi, T. 1999b, 'Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item

measures? 'Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 5, pp. 388-403.

Titus Oshagbemi, (2000) "Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university

teachers", Women In Management Review, 15,7, pp.331–343.

Oyler, J.D. 2007, 'Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Organisational

and Community Embeddedness', Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Pallant, J. 2001, SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS

for Windows (Version 10), New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.

Pallant, J. 2011, SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS

for Windows (Version 18), New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.

Pare, G., Tremblay, M. and Lalonde, P. 2000, The Measurement and Antecedents of

Turnover Intention among IT Professionals, Cahier du Gresi No 00-12.

Pinder, C.C. 1984, 'Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory', in VH Vroom and EL

Deci (eds), Management and Motivation, Selected Readings, Penguin Books,

England.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. 2003, ‘Common

Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and

Recommended Remedies’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, pp. 879-903.

Polonsky, M.J., Juric, B. and Mankelow, G. 2003, 'Attitudes about Work Practices, Time

Allocation, and Publication Output: Profile of U.S. Marketing Academics',

Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 3, pp. 218-230.

Poole, M. and Bornholt, L. 1998, 'Career Development of Academics: Cross-cultural and

Lifespan Factors', International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 1, pp.

103-126.

Porter, K., Smith, P. and Fagg, R. 2006, Leadership and Management for HR

Professionals, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Potter, S .(ed) 2006, Doing postgraduate research, 2nd ed., London: The Open

University in association with SAGE Publications.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. 2004, 'SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models', Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,

and Computers, 36, 4, pp. 717-731.

Premeaux, S.F., Adkins, C.L. and Mossholder, K.W. 2007, ‘Balancing work and family:

A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict’, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 705–727.

423

Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. 1981, 'A causal model of turnover for nurses', Academy of

Management Journal (pre-1986), 24, 3, pp. 543-565.

Rad, A.M.M. and Yarmohammadian, M.H. 2006, A study of relationship between

managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health

Services, 19, 2, pp. xi-xxviii.

Rahim, A.F. 2007, 'Kurikulum universiti awam dikaji semula setiap 3 tahun [transl.

public universities curricula will be reviewed every three years]', Utusan

Malaysia, 11 June 2007.

Rahman, M.A.A. 1997, 'The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in

research organization', Master Thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor,

Malaysia.

Raja Zainal Abidin, R.Z. 2007, 'Social Policy Formulation And Implementation In

Malaysia', paper presented to National Conference On Integrated Social Policies,

Cairo, Egypt, <http://www.escwa.org.lb/sp-Egypt/>(7 February 2007).

Ramakrishnan, M. 2005, 'Malaysia steps up to the challenge', Asia Today International,

Melbourne: LexisNexis.

Ranz, J., Stueve, A. and McQuistion, H.L. 2001, 'The Role of the Psychiatrist: Job

Satisfaction of Medical Directors and Staff Psychiatrists', Community Mental

Health Journal, 37, 6, pp. 525-539.

Ray, N.M. and Tabor, S.W. 2003, 'Cyber survey come of age', Marketing Research,

Spring, pp. 32-37.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., and Swartz, E. 1998, Doing Research in Business

and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, London: SAGE

Publications.

Rizvi, F. 2004, 'Globalisation and the Dilemmas of Australian Higher Education', Critical

Perspectives on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies, 23, 2, pp. 33-42.

Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M.K. 1999, Management, New York: Prentice Hall.

Roberts, J.E. And Chonko, L.B. 1994, ‘Sex-Differences In The Effect Of Satisfaction

With Pay On Sales Forceturnover’, Journal Of Social Behavior And Personality,

9, 3, pp. 507-516.

Rodeghier, M. 1996, Survey with Confidence: A Practical Guide to Survey Research

Using SPSS, Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Rogelberg, S.G. and Stanton, J.M. 2007, ‘Understanding and Dealing with

Organizational Survey Nonresponse, Organizational Research Methods, 10,

pp.195-209.

Rogers, J.D., Claw, K.E. and Kash, T.J 1994, 'Increasing job satisfaction of service

personnel', Journal of Services Marketing, 8, 1, pp. 14-26.

Roscoe, J.T. 1969, Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rotter, J.B. 1964, Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Rungruang, P. 2007, 'The Three-Component Model of Organisational Commitment in

Thailand', TMC Academic Journal, 2, 2, pp. 55-70.

Saad, A.W., 1992, 'Port clerical staff's perception towards job satisfaction: A comparative

study between public and private sectors', Master Thesis, University Putra

Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.

424

Saane, N.V., Sluiter, J.K., Verbeek, J.H.A.M. and Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. 2003,

'Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction- a systematic

review', Occupational Medicine, 53, 3, pp. 191-200.

Saeednia, Y. 2009, The need to know and to understand in Maslow’s basic needs

hierarchy. US-China Education Review, 6, 9, pp. 52-57.

Saiyadain, M.S. 1996, 'Correlates of job satisfaction among Malaysian Managers',

Malaysian Management Review, 31, 3, pp.1-14.

Samad, S. 2006, 'Assessing the Effects of Work and Family Related Factors on Women

Well-Being', Journal of American Academy of Business, 9, 1, pp. 52-57.

Santhapparaj, A.S. and Syed, S.A. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff in

Private Universities in Malaysia', Journal of Social Sciences, 1, 2, pp. 72-76.

Sarjit, K., Morshidi, S., and Norzaini, A. 2008, Globalization and internationalization of

higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Press.

Sarker, S.J., Crossman, A. and Chinmeteepituck, P. 2003, 'The relationships of age and

length of service with job satisfaction: an examination of hotel employees in

Thailand', Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 7, pp. 745-758.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2000, Research Methods for Business Students,

Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Sawyer, K.R., Johnson, J. and Holub, M. 2007, Decline in Academe, Social Science

Research Network, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961993>

(12 May 2010).

Saygi, H., Tolon, T. and Tekogul, H. 2011, ‘Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff In

Fisheries Faculties At Turkish Universities’, Social Behavior and Personality; 39,

10, pp. 1395-1402.

Scholarios, D. and Marks, A. 2004, 'Work-life balance and the software worker', Human

Resource Management Journal, 14, 2, pp. 54-74.

Scott, G. 2004, 'Change Matters: Making a Difference in Higher Education', paper

presented to Quality in a time of change: proceedings of the Australian

Universities Quality Forum 2004, Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.

Seashore, S.E. and Taber, T.D. 1975, 'Job Satisfaction Indicators and Their Correlates',

American Behavioral Scientist, 18, pp. 333-368.

Sekaran, U. 2000, Research Methods for Business, A Skill-Building Approach, New

York: John-Wiley and Sons.

Sentovich, C. 2004, 'Teacher Satisfaction in Public, Private, and Charter Schools: A

Multi-Level Analysis', PhD Thesis, University of South Florida.

Shankar, S.J. 2005, 'Ghauth eyes world-class status', Malaysian Business, 16 November

2005.

Slattery, J.P. and Selvarajan, T.T.R. 2005, 'Antecedents to Temporary Employee's

Turnover Intention', Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 1, p

53.

Sohail, M.S., Rajadurai, J. and Abdul Rahman, N.A. 2003, 'Managing quality in higher

education: a Malaysian case study', International Journal of Educational

Management, 17, 4, pp. 141-146.

Spector, P.E. 1996, Industrial Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, New

York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

425

Spector, P.E. 1997, Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences,

Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Stallworth, L. 2004, 'Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment to

accounting organizations', Managerial Auditing Journal, 19, 7, pp. 945-55.

Stanton, P., Willis, E. and Young, S. 2005, Workplace reform in the healthcare industry:

the Australian experience, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Stemple, J.D.J. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction of High School Principals in Virginia', Phd Thesis,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Stevens, P.A. 2005, ‘The job satisfaction of English academics and their intentions to quit

academe’, NIESR Discussion Papers 262, National Institute of Economic and

Social Research.

Subramani, S. and Kempner, K. 2002, 'Malaysian higher education: Captive or post-

Western?', Australia Journal of Education, 46, 3, pp. 231-254.

Sverko, B., Arambasic, L. and Galesic, M. 2002, 'Work-life Balance Among Croatian

Employees: Role Time Commitment, Work-home Interference and Well-being',

Social Science Information, 41, pp. 281-301.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Edition,

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

‘Tackle the core issue’, 2005, Malaysian Business, 1 July 2005, p.10.

Tahir, S. 1995, 'Factors of job satisfaction among workshop teachers: A study at

Vocational Secondary School of Batu Pahat Johor', Master thesis, Technology

University of Malaysia, Johor Bahru.

Talbot, C. 1992, 'Evaluation and Validation: A Mixed Approach', Journal of European

Industrial Training, 16, 5, pp. 26-32.

Tan, D. and Akhtar, S. 1995, 'A Comparison of Job-Facet Satisfaction and Commitment

Determinants of Turnover Intention', International Journal of Employment

Studies, 3, 1, pp. 35-51.

Tanner, B.M.J. 2007, 'An Analysis of the Relationships among Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Trust, and Organizational Commitment in an Acute Care

Hospital', Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. 1998, Mixed methodology : combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds) 2003, Handbooks of Mixed Methods in Social and

Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Technology University of Malaysia 2007, UTM Towards World Class University 2010,

Technology University of Malaysia, <http://www.utm.my/wcu/wcu.htm> (15

April 2007).

Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. 2009, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research,

Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral

Sciences, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. 1993, 'Job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover

intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings',

Personnel Psychology, 46, 2, pp. 259-293.

Tharenou, P., Donohue, R. and Cooper, B. 2007, Management Research Methods, Port

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

426

Thillaisundaram, A. 2003, 'Measurement of Teaching and Research Outputs in Higher

Education', Journal of Economics Studies, 40, 1/2, pp. 1-21.

Thong, L.K. 1995, 'University in the context of national development: A case-study of

Malaysian academics' perceptions', University of Alberta, Canada.

Tipples, R. and Jones, P. 1999, 'Employment Relations, Efficiency and Effectiveness in

Australasian Universities Two Case Studies', International Journal of

Employment Studies, 7, 1, pp. 149-156.

Toker, B. 2011, 'Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey',

Quality Assurance in Education, 19, 2, pp. 156-169.

Tu, L., Plaisent, M., Bernard, P. and Maguiraga, L. 2005, 'Comparative age differences of

job satisfaction on faculty at higher education level: China and Taiwan',

International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 3, pp. 259-267.

UNESCO, 2005, Reforming Higher Education, <http://portal.unesco.org/education/en

/ev.phpURL_ID=40215andURL_DO=DO_TOPICandURL_SECTION=201.html

> (20 April 2010).

United Nations, 2003, Social Policy in Malaysia, <http://www.escwa.org.lb/sp-

readings/SOCIAL%20POLICIES%20IN%20 MALAYSIA.pdf> (29 March

2010).

University of Malaya, 2012, History of UM, <http://www.um.edu.my

/discover_um/history_of_um.php?intPrefLangID=1and> (21 October 2012).

University Putra Malaysia, 2007, Research and Innovation, <http://www.upm.edu.my/

?aktvt=contentandkat=Candkod=20070126026073044172169875> (15 April

2010).

Utusan Malaysia, 2007a, '60% pensyarah PhD di setiap IPTA tahun 2010 [transl. 60%

PhD Lecturers in all Public Universities by 2010]’, Utusan Malaysia, 5 June

2007.

Utusan Malaysia, 2007b, 'IPT perlu jaga kualiti kursus - PM [transl. Universities should

maintain their courses quality-Prime Minister]', Utusan Malaysia, 5 June 2007.

Utusan Malaysia, 2007c, 'Kerangka Petunjuk Prestasi IPTA dibangunkan [transl. Public

Universities' Key Performance Indicator will be developed]', Utusan Malaysia, 1

July 2007.

Utusan Malaysia, 2007d, 'Kerjasama universiti, swasta digalakkan [transl. Collaboration

of Universities and the Industry is encouraged]', Utusan Malaysia, 18 May 2007.

Utusan Malaysia, 2007e, 'Sistem 'rating' IPTS diperkenal pada Jun [Transl. Private

Higher Education rating system will be introduced in June]', Utusan Malaysia, 16

April 2007.

van Teijlingen, E. and Hundley, V. 2001, 'The Importance of Pilot Studies', Social

Research Update, 35, pp. 1-4.

Vaus, D. 2004, Research Design in Social Research, London: SAGE Publications.

Villanueva, D. and Djurkovic, N. 2009, 'Occupational Stress and Intention to Leave

Among Employees in Small and Medium Enterprises', International Journal of

Stress Management, 16, 2, pp. 124-137.

Virick, M., Lily, J.D. and Casper, W.J. 2007, 'Doing more with less: An analysis of work

life balance among layoff survivors', Career Development International, 12, 5,

pp. 463-480.

Vroom, V.H. 1964, Work and Motivation, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

427

Vroom, V.H. 1995, Work and Motivation, California: Josey-Bass Inc.

Vroom, V.H. and Deci, E.L. (eds) 1992, Management and Motivation, Selected Readings,

2nd. ed, England: Penguin Books.

Walford, G. 2001, Doing qualitative educational research : a personal guide to the

research process, London: Continuum.

Ward-Warmedinger, M. E. and Sloane, P.J. 1999, ‘Job Satisfaction within the Scottish

Academic Profession’, IZA Discussion Paper 38, Institute for the Study of Labor.

Waskiewicz, S.P. 1999, 'Variables That Contribute to Job Satisfaction of Secondary

School Assistant Principals', PhD Thesis,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Waters, M.A. and Bardoel, E.A. 2006, ‘Work-family policies in the context of higher

education: Useful or symbolic?’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44,

1, pp. 67-82.

Weir, M. (ed.) 1976, Job Satisfaction, Challenge and Response in Modern Britain,

Glasgow: Fontana/William Collins.

Westfall, R. 2012, ‘An Analysis of Person-Job Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Student

Academic Performance’, Tarleton State University. PhD Dissertation.

Westman, M., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T. 2009, 'Expert commentary on work–life

balance and crossover of emotions and experiences: Theoretical and practice

advancements', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, pp. 587-95.

Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar, S. and Lotfi-Goodarzi, F. 2012, ‘What Is the Relationship between

Spiritual Intelligence and Job Satisfaction among MA and BA Teachers?’,

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 8, pp.299-303.

Yeoh, T.E.S. 2007, 'The Facet Satisfaction Scale: Enhancing the Measurement of Job

Satisfaction', University of North Texas. PhD Dissertation.

Young, S. Bartram, T., Stanton, P. and Leggat, S.G. 2010, ‘High performance work

systems and employee well-being: A two stage study of a rural Australian

hospital’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 24, 2, pp. 182-199.

Youngcourt, S.S. 2005, 'Examination of Supervisor Assessments of Employee Work-Life

Conflict, Supervision Support, and Subsequent Outcomes', PhD Thesis, Texas

A&M University.

Yusof, A.M. and Mohamed, A. 2002, 'Understanding Corporatisation in Malaysia',

Keeping Good Companies, 54, 2, pp. 78-81.

Zakaria, Z. 2001, 'Factors Related to Information Technology Implementation in the

Malaysian Ministry of Education Polytechnics', Phd Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Zin, R.M. 2006, 'The Relationships between Family and Career-related Factors and

Organizational Commitment: A Malaysian Case', The Business Review, 5, 2, pp.

117-121.

job satisfaction of academics in …arrow.latrobe.edu.au/store/3/5/0/1/1/public/master...2.5...

Documents