Impact of Demographic Diversities on the Job Satisfaction and Its Consequences: Case of Academicians in Higher Learning Institutions of Pakistan (Application of Stepwise Multiple Regression)

Table of contents

1.

satisfaction of their workforce (Lise and Judge, 2004). Organizations want their employees to be satisfied to become productive, efficient committed (Shamil and Jalees, 2004). Job satisfaction is the degree of an employee's affective orientation towards their job (Tsigilis, Zachopoulou, and Grammatikopoulos, 2006). Thus, job satisfaction is a very important attribute that is frequently measured by all types of organizations (Beyth-Marom, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, Bar-Haim, and Godder 2006; Wikipedia, 2009; Sattar, Khan, and Nawaz, 2010).

Job satisfaction is mostly predicted either with the factors of job satisfaction or demographic and personal attributes of the employees. The factors include pay, work, supervision, promotion, work environment, and coworkers (Williams and Sandler 1995; Stacey, 1998;Ellickson and Logsdon, 2001; DeVane and Sandy, 2003; Lise and Judge, 2004). Other investigators have used the concepts like personal and organizational factors (Saiyadain, 1998), personal & job characteristics (Sokoya, 2000), challenging work, equitable rewards, encouraging working conditions, supportive co-workers, personality (Naval and Srivastava, 2004), and the "demographic relationships" between satisfaction and the faculty (Shamil and Jalees, 2004; Tsigilis et al., 2006; Saifuddin, Khair-uz-Zaman, and Nawaz, 2010).

Employees are diverse in their demographic attributes, which have implications for the degrees of satisfaction from job dimensions like pay, work, promotion etc (Sokoya, 2000). For example, gender, age, education, designation, numbers of years in organization and marital status of the employees have widely been found critical in determining job satisfaction (Stacey, 1998;Marion, 2001;Bas and Ardic, 2002;Shah and Jalees, 2004;Chughtai and Zafar, 2006;Eker, Anbar, and Dirbiyik, 2007;Asadi, Fadak, Khoshnodifar, Hashemi, and Hosseininia, 2008;Malik et al., 2010;Sattar, et. al., 2010). This study explores the issue of job satisfaction among the academicians in public and private sector universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan by empirically recording their attitudes and demographic attributes. Stepwise regression has been used to compute the significance of employeedemographics on their attitudes.

2. II.

3. Literature Review

Experience tells that satisfied worker is involved and committed to his/her duties while dissatisfied workers practice negative attitudes of absenteeism and turnover (Locke and Latham, 2000:249-250;Bas and Ardic, 2002). Job satisfaction relates to an individual's perceptions and evaluations of the job, which are affected by the needs, circumstances, and expectations (DeVane and Sandy, 2003). It is an emotional response to a job situation that is determined by how well outcomes meet or exceed expectations, for example, if employees are treated unfairly, work hard but rewarded less, they are likely to develop negative attitudes toward their job, officers and colleagues. However, if they are treated fairly and paid well, they are expected to have positive attitudes for the organization (Luthans, 2005:212). Thus, job satisfaction is the expression of contentment by an employee with regard to different dimensions of job (Wikipedia, 2009;Malik et al., 2010;Sattar et al., 2010).

Job satisfaction of academicians is well reported and certain factors of job satisfaction have been researched over and over showing that work, pay, promotion, supervision, co-workers and environment collectively defines the job satisfaction of the employees (Bas and Ardic, 2002;Santhapparaj and Alam, 2005;Beyth-Marom, et. al., 2006;Eker, et. al., 2007;Malik et al., 2010). Literature also provides evidence that employees express diverse attitudes about these factors of satisfaction due to their demographic diversities (Sattar et al., 2010). Different surveys are coming up with a variety of results where some demographics are emerging as having significant implications while other attributes have no or little impacts on the responses.

4. a) Job Satisfaction (js)

Job satisfaction is a general attitude which is determined by the factors of job satisfaction (such as, pay, work, superior's attitude, environment etc.); personal characteristics of the worker (demographics); and social or group factors (Shajahan and Shajahan, 2004:116). People working in the private or government organization have certain needs to satisfy, which must be understood by the human resource management of the respective organization like university (Malik, Nawab, Naeem, and Danish, 2010).

Job satisfaction is defined as the contentment felt of the workers after a need is fulfilled (Williams and Sandler 1995;Robins, 1998: 170). It is a general attitude which is determined by the job predictors (i.e. pay, job, superior behavior and environment etc.) and the personal attitude (demographics) and other social and group factors (Shajahan and Shajahan, 2004:116). People working in the private or government organization bring with them certain needs that affect their performance therefore, understanding how these needs are related with performance and how rewards can lead to job-satisfaction are the urgent issues for every organization working at any level (Sattar et al., 2010;Malik et al., 2010).

Research on the role of demographic factors in determining organizational attitudes is going on across the world by using a variety of statistical tools (Bas & Ardic, 2002;Shah and Jalees, 2004;Smith, Candall, and Hulin, 1969;Oshagbemi, 1999). Similarly, 'regression tools' have been used to predict worker behavior wherein both demographics and factors of job satisfaction has been used as predictors (Santhapparaj and Alam, 2005;Chughtai and Zafar, 2006;Beyth-Marom et al., 2006;Karimi, 2007;Eker et al., 2007). It is therefore critical for every HEI to perform demographic analysis and then use the findings in decision making thereby increasing the chances of job satisfaction (Saifuddin et al., 2010).

5. b) Demographic Impacts on Job Satisfaction

Several studies have explored the demographic attributes by using them as predictors of organizational attitudes, for example, gender, sector, designation, marital status, age, qualification, and experience (Saiyadain, 1998;Naval and Srivastava, 2004). The catalyst role of employee's personal attributes and demographic characteristics is recorded by almost every researcher on job satisfaction. Almost all the researchers have identified 'demographics' as the change agents, which modify employee's attitude towards different aspects of his/her job (Bas and Ardic, 2002;DeVane and Sandy, 2003).

Demographics also affect workers attitudes in terms of productivity, involvement and commitment on one hand and on the other hand the degrees of absenteeism and turnover or intention to leave (Shamil and Jalees, 2004). Another group of researchers have recorded that age, gender, experience, department, foreign qualification or exposure to different culture, and technological challenges always influence the overall satisfaction of the employees (Tella, Ayeni, and Popoola, 2007;Asadi, et al., 2008;Sattar et al., 2010;Malik et al., 2010).

So there are several demographic variations among the workforce which influence the degrees of satisfaction from pay, supervision, work, and environment etc. for example sector (public and private), age, gender, education, qualifications, length of service and marital status etc. of the workers have widely been found critical in determining the satisfaction level (Rocca, and Kostanski, 2001 Given that, researchers have also identified the impact of demographic variables on overall job satisfaction and its different elements and workers related attitude such as, pay, coworkers, supervision, promotions, physical conditions, teaching and research, governance, productivity, involvement, and commitment in different work settings including academic environments (Oshagbemi, and Hickson, 2003;Oshagbemi, 2003 ii.

6. Analysis III

The third variable tested for demographic implications was absenteeism and turnover. Again gender is most important rather only factor, which divides the respondents (?=.325, p<0.05). There is difference of opinion between the males and females about the nature and process of absenteeism and turnover. They have different experiences about this variable therefore hold diverse attitudes. The best fit therefore is: A&T= a+? 1GDR +e A&T= 4.369+.325+1.13397 V. VI.

7. Summary of Analysis

8. Discussion

Table 12 gives interesting findings with regard to the roles played by the demographic attributes of the academicians in HEIs of KPK. The leading points to revisit gender the single most important predictor of all the research variables having significant influence on overall job satisfaction and its outcomes. Male and females are significantly different in their opinion with respect to overall job satisfaction, involvement and commitment as well absenteeism and turnover. These findings are also in the line of Okpara, Squillace, and Erondu, (2005), in United States where they have identified gender discrimination in higher education and provide evidence that male teachers were more satisfied than their female counter parts. Gender differences are also found by previous researchers in their different cultural perspective like Base and Ardic (2002), in Turkey and Shah, and Jalees, (2004) in Pakistan.

Therefore, the issue should be carefully managed and review the policy of the carefully because 'women in higher education have contributed significant progress' (Okpara, Squillace, and Erondu, 2005). Writers have not only sought to describe where women are within the academic but also to put forward explanations for that position and the differing perspectives offered by economists, sociologists, feminists, and management theorists-provide numerous and potentially conflicting explanations of the gender differences in academia (Shaw and Cassell, 2007).

Second critical factor is the classification of public and private institutions. The respondents have difference of opinion about both job satisfaction and involvement and commitment. This also supports previous studies like public sector Greek educators were found more satisfied from their compensation and supervisor in comparison to their colleagues from the private sector (Tsigilis, et.al. 2006). In Turkey public and private university teachers have also reported significant differences about their satisfaction and suggested to review the personnel policies of the public universities because private universities academicians appear to be significantly different from the public university teachers (Bas, and Ardic. 2002). Since the conditions of private and state owned universities are different in so many aspects, it is meaningful to conduct the research with respect to the satisfaction of their employees separately (Kusku, 2003).

Marital status of the respondents is significant in determining the job satisfaction and has no role in other hypothesized regression models. It has been found in a previous literature that marital status significantly affect job satisfaction and explore that, when marriage time increases, the job and life satisfaction also increased (Dikmen, 1995;Azalea, Omar, and Mastor, 2009). Their results show that "married employees are less satisfied as compare to unmarried". However, the results of Greek academics were found no statistical significant influence of marital status on the job satisfaction (Platsidou, and Diamantopoulou, 2009).

In addition, it was identify by Alt?nok, (2011), in the public universities in "Ankara province" that marital status significantly affect the life and job satisfaction. Their result reveals that academicians concerning job and life satisfaction feel negativity of being married and the unmarried academic personnel have a higher life and job satisfaction than the married ones. Nevertheless, the results are contradictory in Pakistan where researchers found that marital status has emerged as a consistent predictor of organizational commitment. They reports that married people have more family responsibilities and need more stability and security in their jobs. Therefore research shows in Pakistan that marital status would be positively related to university teachers' commitment (Chughtai and Zafar, 2006). Furthermore department, Designation, Qualification and Age has been found having no effect whatsoever in any of the regression models applied on all three test-variables.

9. VII.

10. Conclusions

Although the impacts of demographics are widely reported as the significant predictors of the employee attitudes, the current study however, gives surprising results, which are quite contrary to the hypothesized models. Out of seven demographic attributes tested; only three have emerged as critical. Rest of the four factors is playing no role in predicting the values of dependent variables. It is however, alarming that gender differences surface as the most obvious factor showing diversities between males and females. Perhaps it is because of the current political situation in the country.

The difference of opinion between the respondents from public and private sector institutions is also important and denoting several implications. This classification is predictive of variance in job satisfaction and involvement and commitment. However, it has no role in explaining the absenteeism and turnover. The factor has positive impacts as compared to the mixed role of gender. Finally, the marital status of the respondents has implications for the job satisfaction and relations with the involvement & commitment as well as absenteeism & turnover. It is therefore concluded that demographic impacts on the attitudes of academicians in the HEIs of KPK are not significant in terms of their number. However, those few, which have implications, are sensitive; demanding careful handling to keep the related-decisions up and right.

Figure 1.
; DeVane and Sandy, 2003; Ssesanga Showing the Schematic Diagram & Empirical Results of the Theoretical Model. of their workforce, for example, 'comparative analysis of job satisfaction among public and private professionals (David and Wesson, 2001)'; 'comparison of JS between public and private university teachers in Turkey (Bas and Ardic, 2002)'; 'effects of factors of job satisfaction on the satisfaction of faculty members (Castillo and Cano, 2004)'; 'JS of academic staff in private universities of Malaysia (Santhapparaj and Alam, 2005)'; 'JS of Tutors in an Open University (Beyth-Marom et al., 2006)'; and 'consequences of organizational commitment for teachers in Pakistani Universities (Chughtai and Zafar, 2006; Malik et al., 2010).' Given the popularity of survey approach the researcher applied the same and used a structured questionnaire that was extracted from the literature. It was distributed among 260 academicians in the universities of KPK, Pakistan. 218 completed survey instruments were returned giving 83.84% of return rate. The questionnaire included questions about 8demographic (Department, Designation, Qualifications, Gender, Age, Marital Status, and Sector of the University) and research variables including job satisfaction (from pay, work, supervision, promotion, environment, co-workers) involvement & commitment and absenteeism & turnover. 7-point Likert scale was used where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = mildly disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = mildly agree, 6 = agree and 7 = strongly agree. SPSS 12.0 was used to create the database for analysis. The Reliability-analysis gave Cronbach' Alpha of 0.904 for 55 items. Stepwise regression has been used to gradually exclude the insignificant demographic factors thereby reaching the list of the most significant demographics which stand out as the best fit for the criterion variables. All the demographic factors were first converted into dummy variables using the values of 0 and 1 for their dichotomous classifications. Year
Figure 2. Figure 1
1Figure 1 :
Figure 3. Table 1 :
1
Factors Groups Frequency Percent
1 Gender -GDR Female Male 74 144 33.9 66.1
2 Department -DPT Sciences Non-Sciences 122 96 56.0 44.0
3 Public vs. Private -PPR Public Private 169 49 77.5 22.5
4 Marital Status -MST Married Unmarried 121 97 55.5 44.5
5 Designation -DSG AP&ASP Lecturer 84 134 38.5 61.5
6 Qualification -QUA MPhil/PhD Masters 71 147 32.6 67.4
7 AGE 31-Above 20-30 96 122 44.0 56.0
b) Regression of Demographics on Job Satisfaction (JS)
i. Models, Coefficients & Excluded Variables (JS)
Figure 4. Table 2 :
2
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of F Sig.
Square the Estimate
1 .464(a) .215 .211 .61924 59.200 .000(a)
2 .485(b) .235 .228 .61275 33.029 .000(b)
3 .508(c) .258 .248 .60471 24.862 .000(c)
Detail of a Predictors: (Constant), GDR
the b Predictors: (Constant), GDR, MST
Models c Predictors: (Constant), GDR, MST, PPR
d Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (JS)
Figure 5. Table 3 :
3
Model Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta t Sig
1 (Constant) 3.890 .072 54.036 .000
GDR .681 .089 .464 7.694 .000
2 (Constant) 3.695 .109 33.962 .000
GDR .817 .105 .556 7.803 .000
MST .236 .100 .169 2.366 .019
3 (Constant) 3.751 .109 34.262 .000
GDR .790 .104 .538 7.603 .000
MST .288 .100 .205 2.863 .005
PPR -.268 .103 -.161 -2.600 .010
Figure 6. Table 4 :
4
Model Beta In T Sig. Partial Collinearity
Correlation Statistics
Tolerance
3 DPT -.064(c) -1.076 .283 -.074 .995
DSG -.024(c) -.391 .696 -.027 .932
QUA -.046(c) -.761 .448 -.052 .944
AGE .067(c) .893 .373 .061 .618
Figure 7. Table 5 :
5
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of F Sig.
Square Square the Estimate
1 .675(a) .456 .453 .95729 180.753 .000(a)
2 .752(b) .566 .561 .85715 139.933 .000(b)
Detail of a Predictors: (Constant), GDR
the b Predictors: (Constant), GDR, PPR
Models c Dependent Variable: Involvement and Commitment (I&C)
Figure 8. Table 6 :
6
Model Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig
1 (Constant) 3.020 .111 27.141 .000
GDR 1.841 .137 .675 13.444 .000
2 (Constant) 3.406 .113 30.268 .000
GDR 1.617 .126 .593 12.799 .000
PPR -1.057 .143 -.342 -7.377 .000
Figure 9. Table 7 :
7
Model Beta In T Sig. Partial Collinearity
Correlation Statistics
Tolerance
2 DPT -.065(b) -1.453 .148 -.099 .995
MST .070(b) 1.278 .203 .087 .673
DSG -.013(b) -.280 .779 -.019 .960
QUA -.069(b) -1.505 .134 -.102 .961
AGE -.047(b) -.952 .342 -.065 .818
ii. Analysis II excluded from the models through stepwise multiple
Involvement and commitment was the second regression (See table 7). The best fit for the dependent
criterion variable tested for demographic impacts. The variable, therefore, is:
results (table 7) shows that only gender (?=.593, p<0.05) and sector (?=-+-.342, p<0.05) are the significant factors while rest of the five factors have been I&C = a+? 1GDR +? 3PPR +e I&C = 3.406+.593+-.342+.85715
d) Regression of Demographics on Absenteeism & Turnover (A&T)
i. Models, Coefficients & Excluded Variables (A&T)
Figure 10. Table 8 :
8
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of the F Sig.
Square Square Estimate
1 .325(a) .106 .102 1.13397 25.516 .000(a)
Detail of the a. Predictors: (Constant), GDR (Gender)
Model b. Dependent Variable: Absenteeism and Turnover (A&T)
Figure 11. Table 9 :
9
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig
1 (Constant) 4.369 .132 33.146 .000
GDR .819 .162 .325 5.051 .000
Figure 12. Table 10 :
10
Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Collinearity
Correlation Statistics
Tolerance
1 DPT -.047(a) -.726 .469 -.049 .997
MST .122(a) 1.587 .114 .108 .701
PPR -.110(a) -1.671 .096 -.113 .942
DSG .055(a) .845 .399 .058 .978
QUA .043(a) .661 .510 .045 .978
AGE .083(a) 1.164 .246 .079 .823
Figure 13. Table 11 :
11
Job Satisfaction
Hypothesized Model JS = a+ ? 1GDR +? 2DPT +? 3MST +? 4PPR +? 5DSG +? 6QUA +? 7AGE +e
1 The best fit JS = a+? 1GDR +? 2MST +? 3PPR+e
JS = 3.751+.538+.205+-.161+.60471
Excluded variables DPT, DSG, QUA, & AGE
Involvement & Commitment
Hypothesized Model I&C = a+ ? 1GDR +? 2DPT +? 3MST +? 4PPR +? 5DSG +? 6QUA +? 7AGE +e
2 The best fit I&C = a + ? 1GDR+ ? 3PPR+e
I&C = 3.406+.593+-.342+.85715
Excluded variables DPT, MST, DSG, QUA, & AGE
Absenteeism & Turnover
Hypothesized Model A&T = a+ ? 1GDR +? 2DPT +? 3MST +? 4PPR +? 5DSG +? 6QUA +? 7AGE +e
3 The best fit A&T= a+? 1GDR +e
A&T= 4.369+.325+1.13397
Excluded variables DPT, MST, PPR, DSG, QUA, & AGE
Figure 14. Table 12 :
12
Demographics Job Satisfaction Involvement & Absenteeism & Roles of the
Commitment Turnover Factors
1 GDR ? ? ? 3
2 DPT - - - 0
3 MST ? - - 1
4 PPR ? ? - 2
5 DSG - - - 0
6 QUA - - - 0
7 AGE - - - 0
1

Appendix A

  1. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers. A A Chughtai , S Zafar . Applied HRM Research 2006. 11 (1) p. .
  2. Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction. A A Dikmen . Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences 1995. 50 p. 34.
  3. Personal characteristics affecting agricultural extension workers' job satisfaction level. A Asadi , F Fadak , Z Khoshnodifar , S M Hashemi , G Hosseininia . Journal of Social Sciences 2008. 4 (4) p. .
  4. The Role of Individual Differences in Job Satisfaction among Indonesians and Malaysians. A Azalea , F Omar , K A Mastor . European Journal of Social Sciences 2009. 10 (4) p. .
  5. Burnout and job satisfaction amongst Victorian secondary school teachers: A comparative look at contract and permanent employment. A D Rocca , M Kostanski . Discussion Paper ATEA Conference. Teacher Education: Change of Heart, Mind and Action 2001. September. p. .
  6. Predicting JS of executive officers in NWFP. A Sattar , S Khan , A Nawaz . Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research 2010. 12 (3) p. .
  7. Job satisfaction among academic staff in private universities in Malaysia. A S Santhapparaj , S S Alam . Journal of Social Sciences 2005. 1 (2) p. .
  8. Work motivation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment of library personnel in academic and research libraries in Oyo state, Nigeria. Library philosophy and practice. 1-16, A Tella , C O Ayeni , S O Popoola . 2007. p. 68. (Available at: http://unllib.unl.edu/ LPP/tella2.pdf] Impacts of Demographic Variables on Job-satisfaction)
  9. A comparative analysis among public versus private sector professionals. B David , T Wesson . The Innovation Journal 2001. 19 (15) p. .
  10. Sectorial Comparison of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction in Indian Banking Sector. B Naval , D Srivastava . Singapore Management Review 2004. 26 (2) p. .
  11. A theory of goal setting and task performance, E A Locke , G P Latham . 2000. Upper saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
  12. Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of academic and administrative staffing Turkey. F Kusku . Career Development International 2003. 7 (8) p. .
  13. Organizational behavior, F Luthans . 2005. McGraw-Hills International Edition.
  14. Human Resource Management, G Dessler . 2005. Pearson Education Inc; India.
  15. Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty. J Castillo , J Cano . Journal of Agricultural Education 2004. 45 (3) p. .
  16. Gender differences and job satisfaction: A study of university teachers in the United States. J O Okpara , M Squillace , E A Erondu . Women in management Review 2005. 20 (3) p. .
  17. Burnout and job satisfaction amongst Victorian secondary school teachers: a comparative look at contract and permanent employment. Ana Della Rocca and Marion Kostanski. Discussion Paper ATEA Conference. Teacher Education: Change of Heart, Mind and Action, K Marion . 2001. September 2001. Melbourne Australia. p. .
  18. Job satisfaction of university academics: Perspectives from Uganda, Higher education, K Ssesanga , R M Garrett . 2005. 50 p. .
  19. Determinants of job satisfaction of Municipal Government employees. M C Ellickson , K Logsdon . State and Local Government Review 2001. 33 (3) p. .
  20. Job satisfaction of academicians in Turkey and the factors affecting job satisfaction. M Eker , A Anbar , L Dirbiyik . The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 2007. 9 (4) p. .
  21. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of University Teachers in Public Sector of Pakistan. M E Malik , S Nawab , B Naeem , R Q Danish . International Journal of Business and Management 2010. 5 (6) p. .
  22. Job satisfaction of Greek university professors: Is it affected by demographic factors, academic rank and problems of higher education. M Platsidou , G Diamantopoulou . Conference Proceedings, ESREA-ReNAdET, G K Zarifis (ed.) (Thessaloniki
    ) 2009. Grafima Publications. p. . (Educating the Adult Educator: Quality Provision and Assessment in Europe)
  23. Correlates of job satisfaction among Malaysian managers. Malaysian institute of management Kuala Lampure, M Saiyadain . 1998. Malaysia.
  24. Job Satisfaction and burnout among Greek early educators: A comparison between public and private sector employees. N Tsigilis , E Zachopoulou , V Grammatikopoulos . Educational Research and Review 2006. 1 (8) p. .
  25. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes, P C Smith , L Kendall , M Hulin , CL . 1969. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  26. Identification, Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation among Tutors at the Open University of Israel. R Beyth-Marom , G Harpaz-Gorodeisky , A Bar-Haim , E Godder . The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2006. 7 p. .
  27. Job satisfaction of recent graduates in financial services, S A Devane , Z Sandy . 2003. Chen Pirdu University US Department of Labor, Bureau of statistics (Available at: WWW. bls.gov)
  28. Impacts of demographic variables on job satisfaction of the academicians in universities of NWFP. Saifuddin , Khair-Uz-Zaman , A Nawaz . Pakistan. Bulletin of Research & Development 2010. 32 (1) p. .
  29. Affecting Job Satisfaction of Faculty Members of Bu, S Karimi . 2008. 23 p. . Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran. Scientific & Research Quarterly Journal of Mazandaran University
  30. Personal predictors of job satisfaction for the public sector manager (Implications for Management practice and development in a developing economy). The journal of Business in Developing Nations, S K Sokoya . 2000. 4.
  31. Employee attitude and job satisfaction. S M Lise , T A Judge . Human resource management 2004. 43 (4) p. .
  32. Organizational behavior, S P Robbins . 1998. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (8th Ed)
  33. S P Robbins . Organizational behavior: Concepts controversies and Applications, 1998. Prentice-Hall.
  34. An analysis of job satisfaction level of faculty members at the University of Sindh. S Shah , T Jalees . Journal of independent studies and research 2004. 2 (1) p. .
  35. Organization behavior, S Shajahan , L Shajahan . 2004. New Age International Publications.
  36. That's not how I see it": female and male perspectives on the academic role. S Shaw , C Cassell . Women In Management Review 2007. 22 (6) p. .
  37. Work values and attitudes: Protestant and Confucian ethics as predictors of satisfaction and commitment. Research and practice in human resource management, S Williams , R L Sandler . 1995. 3 p. .
  38. A comparison of job satisfaction between public and private university academicians in Turkey. T Bas , K Ardic . METU studies in Development 2002. 29 (1-2) p. .
  39. Academics and their managers: comparative study in job satisfaction. T Oshagbemi . Personnel review 1999. 28 (1/2) p. .
  40. Some aspects of overall job satisfaction: a binomial logit model. T Oshagbemi , C Hickson . Journal of Managerial Psychology 2003. 18 (4) p. .
  41. Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK universities. T Oshagbemi . International journal of social economics 2003. 3 (12) p. .
  42. The relationship between job satisfaction of academicians and life time satisfaction. V Alt?nok . African Journal of Business Management 2011. 5 (7) p. .
  43. Job satisfaction, Retrieved on 14 th, Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/job_satisfaction/ 2009. July 2010.
  44. An Examination of factors affecting employees' satisfaction. Department of psychology, W M Stacey . 1998. Missouri western state University
Notes
1
© 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US)
Home 
Date: 2012-09-27