Job satisfaction of academic staff:an empirical study on Turkey

Boran TokerAlanya Faculty of Business, Akdeniz University, Alanya, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the levels of job satisfaction amongacademicians in the universities of Turkey and to examine the effects of demographics on levels ofsatisfaction among them.

Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire-based study was conducted in 648academicians working in the Universities of Turkey. Data were collected using the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form.

Findings – The job satisfaction levels of the academicians were found to be moderately high. Socialstatus was ranked as the highest and compensation was ranked as the lowest of the examined items.The results of the study indicated that professors reported a higher level of job satisfaction ascompared to instructor and research assistants. Nonetheless, among the demographic variables age,length of service in present university and in higher education as a whole were significantly related tojob satisfaction. Marital status and gender were not significantly related to job satisfaction.

Originality/value – This study shows the job satisfaction levels of academicians and theinterrelationships between demographic characteristics and satisfaction in the Universities of Turkey,hence the results from this study can help the academicians and the university administrators toincrease the satisfaction level.

Keywords Turkey, Job satisfaction, Universities, Academic staff, Demographics

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEmployee job satisfaction is an important attribute that organizations desire of theirstaff (Oshagbemi, 2003). Job satisfaction may be linked to performance, organizationalproductivity and other issues, including labour turnover. However, dissatisfiedemployees are prone to absenteeism and excessive turnover (Chen et al., 2006; Lee et al.,1999; Melamed et al., 1995; Sekoran and Jauch, 1978; Dickter et al., 1996). Indirect costsassociated with job dissatisfaction may include training, recruiting, and learning curveinefficiencies, as well as reduction in the client base (Brown and Mitchell, 1993). On thecontrary, employee satisfaction can improve productivity, reduce staff turnover andenhance creativity and commitment. Consequently, job satisfaction should not beignored, but very few organizations seriously consider job satisfaction (Munhurrun et al.,2009).

Although most of the researches in employee satisfaction field have been related toprofit-making industrial and service organizations, there has been a growing interest insatisfaction of employees in higher education. The reason for this increasing interestis the reality that higher education institutions are labour intensive and their budgets arepredominantly devoted to personnel and their effectiveness is largely dependent on theirstaff. Consequently, satisfaction of the employees in higher education institutions is avery important issue (Kusku, 2003).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

QAE19,2

156

Received December 2009Revised January 2011Accepted January 2011

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 19 No. 2, 2011pp. 156-169q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0968-4883DOI 10.1108/09684881111125050

Theoretical backgroundJob satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’sjob as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values (Locke, 1968). Jobsatisfaction has been found to significantly influence absenteeism, turnover, jobperformance, and psychological distress (Chen et al., 2006; Andrisani, 1978; Spector,1997). Lee (1988) also revealed that job dissatisfaction is among the best predictors ofturnover. Additionally, Williams (1995) found that employee benefits affect their jobsatisfaction. Nevertheless, several antecedents of job satisfaction have been studied overthe years including compensation, opportunity for advancement, leadership style, workenvironment, organizational structure and climate (Testa, 1999; Pearson and Seiler,1983; Kline and Boyd, 1991).

Since the late 1950s, several researchers have theorized the nature of job satisfaction,developed models that explain differences in job satisfaction, and conducted empiricalstudies to test their models (Lacy and Sheehan, 1997). One of the better-known jobsatisfaction theories was developed by Herzberg et al. (1959). Herzberg’s two-factor theorysupposed that the phenomenon of job satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction is a function oftwo classes of variables named motivator and hygiene factors. The satisfaction, growth ormotivator factors that are intrinsic to the job are: achievement, recognition for achievement,responsibility, the work itself, and growth or advancement. The dissatisfaction, avoidanceor hygiene factors that are extrinsic to the job are: salary, status, security, company policyand administration, working conditions, supervision, and interpersonal relationships(Herzberg, 1987). Herzberg claimed that hygiene factors are not directly related to jobsatisfaction, therefore, these factors will not distinctly improve performance (Hancer andGeorge, 2003). The motivators and hygiene factors of Herzberg et al. (1959) are similar tothe intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors of other scholars. Intrinsic job satisfactionhas been defined as a person’s value in terms of her/his creativity, opportunities forresource mobilization, future development and stability derived from the job; overall,it includes items related to job content (Kuo et al., 2008).

Academic staff of a higher education institution is a key resource and have a majorrole to play in achieving the objectives of the institution (Capelleras, 2005). However, theprimary tasks of academic staff are in three areas, namely, teaching, research, andadministration and management (Oshagbemi, 2000a). The objectives of highereducation are to provide in-depth knowledge, educate students, seek academicdevelopment, and coordinate national development demands (Johnes and Taylor, 1990).Consequently, university teachers’ job satisfaction is related to the higher educationfunctions (Chen et al., 2006).

The research on academic employees is quite rich (Kusku, 2003). Gruneberg et al.(1974a) examined further the question of promotion of university teachers. Gruneberg etal.(1974b) reported on the effect of geographical factors on the job satisfaction of universitylecturers in a provincial university. Gruneberg and Startup (1978) further investigated thedegree to which the different aspects of the job were seen to be of importance, and thedegree to which each was considered as satisfying or dissatisfying in relation to overalljob satisfaction. Pearson and Seiler (1983) explored job satisfaction levels of academiciansand the differences between perceived satisfaction of faculty in professional schools andthat of faculty in other disciplines. Moses (1986) discussed studies of job satisfaction andstaff motivation as background to an interview study at an Australian university. Lacyand Sheehan (1997) examined aspects of academicians’ satisfaction with their job across

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

157

the eight nations (Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico, Sweden, the UK[. . .] and the USA). Enders and Teichler (1997) analyzed some findings and implications ofthe “International Survey of the Academic Profession” with a special focus on the varioussubgroups of academics in some European countries (i.e. Germany, The Netherlands,Sweden and England), Japan, [. . .] and the USA. In this study, the analyses focused on theemployment and working conditions, as well as the way academics handled their variousprofessional tasks and functions. In another study, Leung et al. (2000) identified thesources of stress, and investigated their effects on job satisfaction and psychologicaldistress among university teachers in Hong Kong. Especially, Oshagbemi (1997a, b,1999a, b, 2000a, b, c, d, 2001, 2003) examined job satisfaction among university staff in theUK. Rhodes et al. (2007) also reported on the outcomes from an initial study to explore thejob satisfaction of academicians in the light of changes in higher education in the UK.Galaz-Fontes (2002) sought to determine overall and facet-specific job satisfaction levelsof faculty working at a public state Mexican university and to identify those variables thatbest predicted overall job satisfaction.

Furthermore, studies have been executed to better understand the relationship betweendemographic factors and academics’ job satisfaction. For example, Hagedorn (1996)examined the role of female/male wage differentials in a model of job satisfaction. Tangand Talpade (1999) also investigated the sex differences in job satisfaction of staff andfaculty in a university in the USA. Tu et al. (2005) examined the age differences of jobsatisfaction between Taiwanese and Chinese higher education faculty. Hickson andOshagbemi (1999) investigated the effect of age on academic job satisfaction. Bilimoria et al.(2006) examined how a sample of 248 male and female professors at a Midwestern privateresearch university constructed their academic job satisfaction. Okpara et al. (2005) alsoexamined the effects of gender on the job satisfaction of US academicians. Santhapparajand Alam’s (2005) study examined the relationships between pay, promotion, fringebenefits, working condition, support of research, support of teaching, gender, and jobsatisfaction of academic staff in private universities in Malaysia.

In the case of Turkey, Kusku (2003) explored the differences in satisfactiondimensions between the academic and administrative staff in higher educationinstitutions. Koyuncu et al. (2006) investigated work experiences and satisfaction offemale and male university professors in Turkey. Furthermore, Kızıltepe (2008)examined sources of motivation and demotivation among teachers at a public universityin Istanbul. Esen (2001) analyzed the job satisfaction level of the academic staff workingat the School of Physical Education and Sports. Dorsan (2007) also determined jobsatisfaction levels of the faculty members in a university. In this study, he investigatedthe effects of some demographic variables on job satisfaction levels of the facultymembers. Besides, Sahal (2005) examined the relationship between the organizationalculture and job satisfaction among research assistants at one public university. On theother hand, Caglıyan (2007) investigated the effect of burnout on job satisfaction amongacademicians at state and private universities.

MethodologyParticipants and procedureThis study was executed in three basic stages: sampling, data collection, and dataanalysis. Sampling design and sample size are important subjects to statisticallyrepresent the population and to be able to suggest implications both for theory

QAE19,2

158

and practice. At the research time, there were 94 state and 31 foundation universities inTurkey. The survey covered eight universities selected from each of the sevengeographical regions in Turkey. The questionnaire, which was designed as a web pagelink was sent to all academicians in every department at these universities. The totalnumber of academicians contacted via e-mail was 7,196 generating response rates of9 percent with a valid number of 648 university teachers consisting of instructors,research assistants, and professors. The survey was carried out in 2008.

The demographic details of respondents are given in Table I. There was not muchdifference in gender: 50.6 per cent of the respondents were female and 49.4 percent weremale. Concerning age of the respondents, 35.1 percent were between 31 and 40 years,30.7 per cent were between 21 and 30 years, 23.2 percent were between 41 and 50 years,and 8.5 percent were between 51 and 60 years. Only 2.5 percent of the respondents were61 and over years of age. About 64.3 percent of the respondents were married,

n %

GenderFemale 321 50.6Male 314 49.4Age21-30 198 30.731-40 227 35.141-50 150 23.251-60 55 8.561 and over 16 2.5Marital statusMarried 414 64.3Single 190 29.5Divorced/widowed 40 6.2Academic titleProfessor 90 13.9Associate professor 65 10.1Assistant professor 133 20.6Instructor 109 16.9Research assistant 232 35.9Lecturer 4 0.6Specialist 13 2.0Length of service in present university,1 19 3.01-5 180 28.46-10 174 27.411-15 114 18.016-20 61 9.621 and over 86 13.6Length of service in higher education as a whole,1 33 5.11-5 236 36.76-10 186 28.911-15 87 13.516-20 52 8.121 and over 49 7.6

Table I.Demographic profile

of the respondents

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

159

29.5 percent were single and 6.2 percent were divorced or widow. Distribution of theacademic titles of the respondents was as follows: 35.9 percent research assistants,20.6 percent were assistant professors, 16.9 percent were instructors, 13.9 percent wereprofessors, 10.1 per cent were associate professors, and 2.6 percent were specialists andlecturers.

MeasuresThe Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was originally developed byWeiss et al. (1967). MSQ contains 100 items in the long form and 20 items in the shortform. The short form consists of three scales: intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction,and general satisfaction. General satisfaction is found by measuring all 20 items. Theshort form MSQ was designed to measure intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction based uponHerzberg’ two-factor theory (Weiss et al., 1967). The short form of the MSQ wastranslated and adapted into Turkish by the Department of Psychology of the Universityof Bosphorus. Baycan (1985) performed a validation and reliability analysis of theTurkish version of the MSQ as part of her postgraduate thesis. Since then, it has beenused in various studies in Turkey (Ozyurt et al., 2006).

MSQ scores may be computed into one overall level of satisfaction score or combinedto form subscales measuring extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Hancer and George, 2003).Questions are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (extremely dissatisfied)to five (extremely satisfied). The possible score ranges from 20 to 100.

The questionnaire also included a demographic section, which asked for thefollowing information: academic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service inpresent university, and in higher education.

Cronbach’s a coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of MSQ. Thealpha coefficient for this study was 0.90, indicating high scale reliability. For the purposeof identifying and examining the underlying dimensions of the instrument, a factoranalysis using principal component method was used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)and t-tests were computed to assess differences in level of job satisfaction related toacademic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service in present university, and inhigher education. Analyses were performed using SPSS 16.

Analysis of findingsMean scores and standard deviations of MSQ short form items are shown in Table II forthe respondents. As it is seen in Table II, social status (4.29), social service (4.28), andability utilization (4.24) had the highest level of satisfaction mean scores. Compensation(2.17), supervision-technical (2.95), and supervision-human relations (3.00) had thelowest level of satisfaction mean scores.

Factor analysisA principal factor analysis was performed on items in order to identify dimensions of theinstrument. Bartlett’s test of sphericity with a value of 5051.73 ( p , 0.001) and thecalculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistics of 0.89, pointed out that data seemedsuitable for factor analysis. Taking the distribution of the Scree-plot into consideration,principal component factors with an eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated bythe varimax analysis. About 20 items from the factor analysis resulted in four factorgroupings and explained 57 percent of the total variance. Most of the factor

QAE19,2

160

loadings were .0.60, indicating a good correlation between the items and the factorgrouping they represent.

First factor includes six items. Independence, variety, creativity, responsibility,ability utilization, and activity that appeared to represent intrinsic job satisfaction wereloaded on this factor. The percentage of total variance explained by the first factor was34.3. This factor was named nature of work.

Second factor includes five items. Supervision (technical), supervision(human relations), recognition, and company policies and practices that appeared torepresent extrinsic job satisfaction were loaded on this factor. Coworkers, originallygeneral satisfaction item also loaded on second factor. The percentage of total varianceexplained by the second factor was 10.7. This factor was named extrinsic jobsatisfaction.

Third factor includes six items. Social service, authority, security, social status,achievement, and moral values were loaded on this factor, representing original,intrinsic job satisfaction items. This factor was named intrinsic job satisfaction. Thepercentage of total variance explained by the third factor was 6.3.

Fourth factor includes three items. Compensation and advancement that appeared torepresent extrinsic job satisfaction were loaded on this factor. Working conditions,originally general satisfaction item also loaded on fourth factor. The percentage of totalvariance explained by the fourth factor was 5.7. This factor was named physical jobsatisfaction (Table III).

Factor structure of the MSQ short form in this study was different from the factorstructure of the original MSQ short form. Two-factor structures consisting of intrinsicand extrinsic job satisfaction was proposed in the original scale, but a four-factorstructure was found in the current study.

Facets Mean SD Type

1. Activity 3.55 0.956 Intrinsic2. Independence 3.98 1.01 Intrinsic3. Variety 4.07 0.888 Intrinsic4. Social status 4.29 0.721 Intrinsic5. Supervision (human relations) 3.00 1.24 Extrinsic6. Supervision (technical) 2.95 1.22 Extrinsic7. Moral values 3.92 0.945 Intrinsic8. Security 4.00 0.881 Intrinsic9. Social service 4.28 0.723 Intrinsic

10. Authority 3.78 0.867 Intrinsic11. Ability utilization 4.24 0.795 Intrinsic12. Company policies and practices 3.43 1.05 Extrinsic13. Compensation 2.17 1.14 Extrinsic14. Advancement 3.75 1.04 Extrinsic15. Responsibility 3.70 1.04 Intrinsic16. Creativity 3.88 0.980 Intrinsic17. Working conditions 3.29 1.15 General18. Coworkers 3.24 1.17 General19. Recognition 3.25 1.15 Extrinsic20. Achievement 3.98 0.934 Intrinsic

Table II.MSQ short form means

and standard deviations

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

161

Group differencesANOVAs and t-test were computed to determine differences in means for the overalljob satisfaction by academic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service in presentuniversity, and length of service in higher education. ANOVA was used to examinemean differences among the academic titles. The relationships between the level ofjob satisfaction and academic titles are statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe testwas used to detect the difference in means among professors, associate professors,assistant professors, instructors, and research assistants. Table IV shows the results ofthe one-way ANOVA comparison and the post hoc multiple comparison tests (Scheffe).As can be seen in Table IV, the difference in means of job satisfaction for professors wasstatistically different and higher than instructors and research assistants[1].

ANOVA test was used to analyze the overall job satisfaction for any significantdifferences among the respondents’ age groups. The relationships between thejob satisfaction and the age groups are statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe testwas used to explore the difference in means among 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 61 andover age groups. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 61 years and over wasstatistically different and higher than 21-30 and 31-40 years. Results are presented inTable V.

The difference of means for the overall job satisfaction in terms of length of service inpresent university indicates in Table VI. The relationships between the job satisfaction

ItemsFactorloading Eigenvalue

Percentage of varianceexplained

Originalscale

1. Factor 6.86 34.32Independence 0.829 IntrinsicVariety 0.795 IntrinsicCreativity 0.690 IntrinsicResponsibility 0.619 IntrinsicAbility utilization 0.577 IntrinsicActivity 0.402 Intrinsic2. Factor 2.13 10.67Supervision (technical) 0.894 ExtrinsicSupervision (humanrelations) 0.877 ExtrinsicCoworkers 0.659 GeneralRecognition 0.644 ExtrinsicCompany policies andpractices 0.467 Extrinsic3. Factor 1.26 6.31Social service 0.733 IntrinsicAuthority 0.699 IntrinsicSecurity 0.688 IntrinsicSocial status 0.578 IntrinsicAchievement 0.489 IntrinsicMoral values 0.353 Intrinsic4. Factor 1.14 5.72Compensation 0.759 ExtrinsicAdvancement 0.597 ExtrinsicWorking conditions 0.466 General

Table III.The factor analysisresults

QAE19,2

162

and years at university are also statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test was usedto explore the difference of means among time periods of length of service in presentuniversity, i.e. less than one, one to five, six to ten, 11-15, 16-20, and 21 years and over.The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21 years and over was statisticallydifferent and higher than one to five, and six to ten years.

Table VII also indicates the difference in means for the overall job satisfactionby length of service in higher education. The relationships between the job satisfactionand years in academia are also statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test was usedto explore the difference of means among time periods of length of service in highereducation, i.e. ,1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, and 21 years andover. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21 years and over was statisticallydifferent and higher than 1-5, and 6-10 years.

Finally, ANOVA test was used to determine differences in means for the job satisfactionby marital status. No significant differences were found for respondents’ marital status.Besides, the effect of gender on the job satisfaction was analyzed by t-test but no significantdifferences were found in job satisfaction between women and men academicians.

Conclusions and discussionThe MSQ short form was used to evaluate the academicians’ job satisfaction in thisstudy. Academicians showed a moderately high-level of overall job satisfaction with

Post hocanalysis(Scheffe)

Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 14.155 6 2.359 7.581 0.000 1 ¼ 3.91 * *Within groupsTotal

198.864213.019

639645

0.311 2 ¼ 3.743 ¼ 3.674 ¼ 3.495 ¼ 3.53

**

Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 ¼ Professor; 2 ¼ Associate professor; 3 ¼ Assistantprofessor; 4 ¼ Instructor; 5 ¼ Research assistant

Table IV.One-way ANOVA and

post hoc multiplecomparison tests

(Scheffe) of the overall jobsatisfaction by academic

titles

Post hocanalysis(Scheffe)

Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 6.228 4 1.557 4.827 0.001 1 ¼ 3.58 *Within groupsTotal

206.761212.989

641645

0.323 2 ¼ 3.593 ¼ 3.704 ¼ 3.755 ¼ 4.11 * *

*

Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 ¼ 21-30, 2 ¼ 31-40, 3 ¼ 41-50, 4 ¼ 51-60, 5 ¼ 61 andover

Table V.One-way ANOVA and

post hoc multiplecomparison tests

(Scheffe) of the overall jobsatisfaction by age

groups

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

163

a mean score of 3.64. From the mean scores, under the intrinsic factor of job satisfaction,social status, social service, and ability utilization items had the highest level ofsatisfaction mean scores. Compensation, supervision-technical, and supervision-humanrelations within the extrinsic factor had the lowest level of satisfaction mean scores.Consequently, academicians’ job satisfaction should come from intrinsic factors to thework. At the same time, academicians would be expected to be extrinsically motivatedby the factors such as salary, fringe benefits, and administrative features.

The MSQ short form items were exposed to a principal component analysis withvarimax rotation in the current study. A four-factor structure was obtained as a result ofthe factor analysis. The first factor was named nature of work. The second and thethird factors were called extrinsic job satisfaction and intrinsic job satisfaction.The fourth factor was called physical job satisfaction. This factor structure differed fromthe original two-factor structure of The MSQ short form. The literature has also reporteddifferent factor structures for the MSQ short form. Similar results were foundby Hancer and George (2003) who also reported a four-factor structure. Arvey et al.(1978) revealed different factor structures for the MSQ short form (Hancer and George,2003). On the other hand, Schriesheim et al. (1993) revealed problematic constructvalidity and they concluded that the MSQ short form subscales are controversial. In theirstudy, the original 13 items were unchanged and seven items changed. They revealed

Post hocanalysis(Scheffe)

Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groupsWithin groupsTotal

5.287205.300210.586

5637642

1.0570.322

3.281 0.006 1 ¼ 3.682 ¼ 3.603 ¼ 3.574 ¼ 3.665 ¼ 3.676 ¼ 3.92 * *

**

Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 ¼ less than one year; 2 ¼ one to five years; 3 ¼ six to tenyears; 4 ¼ 11-15 years; 5 ¼ 16-20 years; 6 ¼ 21 years and over

Table VI.One-way ANOVA andpost hoc multiplecomparison tests(Scheffe) of the overall jobsatisfaction by length ofservice in presentuniversity

Post hocanalysis(Scheffe)

Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groupsWithin groupsTotal

5.756204.406210.163

5628633

1.1510.325

3.537 0.004 1 ¼ 3.692 ¼ 3.613 ¼ 3.574 ¼ 3.625 ¼ 3.586 ¼ 3.87 * *

**

Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 ¼ less than one year, 2 ¼ one to five years, 3 ¼ six to tenyears, 4 ¼ 11-15 years, 5 ¼ 16-20 years, 6 ¼ 21 years and over

Table VII.One-way ANOVA andpost hoc multiplecomparison tests(Scheffe) of the overall jobsatisfaction by lengthof service in highereducation

QAE19,2

164

that working conditions and coworkers (assigned to measure general satisfaction)measure extrinsic satisfaction; security (assigned to the intrinsic subscale) measuresextrinsic satisfaction; compensation, advancement and recognition (assigned tothe extrinsic subscale) measure both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction; and socialstatus measures both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction, rather than intrinsic alone. Tanand Hawkins (2000) also found a different factor structure for the MSQ short form. Theyreported that factor analyses with varimax rotation conducted on the short-form of theMSQ indicated three factors, an intrinsic factor and an extrinsic factor as well as anotherpertaining to satisfaction derived from participating in vocational rehabilitation.Nevertheless, Hirschfeld’s (2000) study compared the original intrinsic and extrinsicsubscales of the MSQ short form to revised subscales using data from two samples. Inhis study, it was revealed that the analyses from both samples indicated that revising theintrinsic and extrinsic subscales made little difference in the results obtained. Moreover,Weiss et al. (1967) reported more complex factor structures for different vocationalgroups (e.g. social workers, office staff, warehouseman, and truck drivers).

The findings of the study indicate that there are significant differences between theoverall job satisfaction and academic titles. Professors have a higher level of jobsatisfaction as compared to instructors and research assistants. Consequently, professorshave the highest level of job satisfaction among the all academicians. Similarly, Hicksonand Oshagbemi (1999) found that job satisfaction increase with rank. Oshagbemi (2003)investigated that academic rank is positively and very strongly correlated with the overalljob satisfaction. Enders and Teichler (1997) determined that compared to the professorialranks at universities, middle-ranking and junior staff are slightly less-satisfied with theirjob situation as a whole, whereby the difference is most striking between Germanprofessors and all other academic staff members within universities.

Among the demographic variables age, length of service in present university andlength of service in higher education were significantly related to overall job satisfaction.In age groups, 61 years and over have significantly higher mean levels of job satisfactionthan 21-40 years. Hickson and Oshagbemi (1999) also found that the effect of ageon teaching satisfaction indicates that the job satisfaction decreases with age but ata decreasing rate. In their study, research satisfaction indicated that age affectsjob satisfaction positively but at a decreasing rate. However, Tu et al. (2005) revealed thatno significant differences were found for Taiwanese and Chinese faculty in the overall jobsatisfaction of age at higher education. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21years and over was statistically different and higher than one to ten years at presentuniversity. In the length of service in higher education groups, 21 years and over also havesignificantly higher mean levels of job satisfaction than one to ten years. Oshagbemi(2000d) found that the overall job satisfaction of university teachers is significantlycorrelated with length of service in present university but not length of service in highereducation. Oshagbemi (2003) revealed that length of service in higher education isnegatively related with the overall job satisfaction. On the other hand, in his study, gender,age and length of service in present universities are not significantly associated directlywith the overall job satisfaction.

Marital status and gender are not significantly related to job satisfaction in thecurrent study. Similarly, Oshagbemi (2000c, 2003) found that gender does not affectthe job satisfaction of university teachers directly. Koyuncu et al. (2006) also reportedthat no significant differences were found in job satisfaction between male and

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

165

female professors in Turkey. On the other hand, Okpara et al. (2005) found that there aregender differences apparent in the job satisfaction levels of university teachers. Hicksonand Oshagbemi (1999) also found that women academicians tend to be slightly moresatisfied in their career than male counterparts. Santhapparaj and Alam (2005)investigated that female academic staff are more-satisfied than their male counterpart.

Job satisfaction is an important matter that needs to be researched further in academicwork life since it is related to performance, productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. At thesame time, academic job satisfaction studies can help the university managements andteachers to develop the quality of education. This study has also considerable implicationsfor university managements in Turkey. First of all, the results from this study can help theacademicians and the university managements to increase the satisfaction level. On theother hand, the results of the study can guide university managements to understandthe demands of the academic staff in terms of job satisfaction, and its intrinsic andextrinsic factors. Especially, among the extrinsic factors, compensation and supervisionsystems are developed in the Universities of Turkey.

It would be useful that future studies should be replicated within the prescribed timelimits, considering variables such as absenteeism, intention to leave, job performance,job stress, burnout, and managerial support.

Note

1. Data for lecturers and specialists were not evaluated because of an inadequate group size.

References

Andrisani, P. (1978), “Job satisfaction among working women”, Signs, Vol. 3, pp. 588-607.

Arvey, R.D., Dewhirst, D.H. and Brown, E.M. (1978), “A longitudinal study of the impact ofchanges in goal setting on employee satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31,pp. 595-608.

Baycan, A.F. (1985), “Analysis of the several aspects of job satisfaction between differentoccupational groups”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul.

Bilimoria, D., Perry, S.R., Liang, X., Stoller, E.P., Higgins, P. and Taylor, C. (2006), “How dofemale and male faculty members construct job satisfaction? The roles of perceivedinstitutional leadership and mentoring and their mediating processes”, Journal ofTechnology Transfer, Vol. 31, pp. 355-65.

Brown, A.K. and Mitchell, T. (1993), “Organizational obstacles: links with financial performance,customer satisfaction, and job satisfaction in a service environment”, Human Relations,Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 725-33.

Caglıyan, Y. (2007), “Burnout syndrome and it’s effects on job satisfaction (A field research on stateand Vakıf Universities’ Academicians)”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Kocaeli University,Kocaeli.

Capelleras, J.L. (2005), “Attitudes of academic staff towards their job and organisation:an empirical assessment”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 11, pp. 147-66.

Chen, S.H., Yang, C.C., Shiau, J.Y. and Wang, H.H. (2006), “The development of an employeesatisfaction model for higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 484-500.

Dickter, D., Roznowski, M. and Harrison, D. (1996), “Temporal tempering: an event history analysisof the process of voluntary turnovers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 705-16.

QAE19,2

166

Dorsan, H. (2007), “An analysis of the level of the job satisfaction of the academic staff workingat near East University”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.

Enders, J. and Teichler, U. (1997), “A victim of their own success? Employment and workingconditions of academic staff in comparative perspective”,HigherEducation, Vol. 34, pp. 347-72.

Esen, N. (2001), “Analyses of the job satisfaction level of the faculty members of the institutionseducating physical education teachers”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Abant Izzet BaysalUniversity, Bolu.

Galaz-Fontes, J.F. (2002), “Job satisfaction of Mexican faculty in a public state university:institutional reality through the lens of the professoriate”, PhD thesis, The ClaremontGraduate University, Claremont, CA.

Gruneberg, M.M. and Startup, R. (1978), “The job satisfaction of university teachers”, VocationalAspect of Education, Vol. 30, p. 76.

Gruneberg, M.M., Startup, R. and Tapfield, P. (1974a), “A study of university teachers’ satisfactionwith promotion procedures”, Vocational Aspect of Education, Vol. 26 No. 64, pp. 53-7.

Gruneberg, M.M., Startup, R. and Tapfield, P. (1974b), “The effect of geographical factors on the jobsatisfaction of university teachers”, Vocational Aspect of Education, Vol. 26 No. 63, pp. 25-9.

Hagedorn, L.S. (1996), “Wage equity and female faculty job satisfaction: the role of wagedifferentials in a job satisfaction causal model”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 37No. 5, pp. 569-98.

Hancer, M. and George, T.R. (2003), “Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: an empiricalinvestigation using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire”, Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 85-100.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Synderman, B.B. (1959),TheMotivation toWork, Wiley, New York, NY.

Herzberg, F. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 109-20.

Hickson, C. and Oshagbemi, T. (1999), “The effect of age on the satisfaction of academics withteaching and research”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 537-44.

Hirschfeld, R.C. (2000), “Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference?”, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, Vol. 60, pp. 255-70.

Johnes, J. and Taylor, J. (1990), Performance Indicators in Higher Education: Buckingham,The Society for Research into Higher Education Open University Press, Buckingham.

Kızıltepe, Z. (2008), “Motivation and demotivation of university teachers”, Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 515-30.

Kline, J.B. and Boyd, J.E. (1991), “Organizational structure, context, and climate: theirrelationships to job satisfaction at three managerial levels”, Journal of General Psychology,Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 305-16.

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), “Work experience and satisfaction of maleand female professors in Turkey: signs of progress?”, Equal Opportunities International,Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38-47.

Kuo, H.T., Yin, T.J.C. and Li, I.C. (2008), “Relationship between organizational empowerment andjob satisfaction perceived by nursing assistants at long-term care facilities”, Journal ofClinical Nursing, Vol. 17 No. 22, pp. 3059-66.

Kusku, F. (2003), “Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic andadministrative staff in Turkey”, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 347-56.

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

167

Lacy, F.J. and Sheehan, B.A. (1997), “Job satisfaction among academic staff: an internationalperspective”, Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 305-22.

Lee, T. (1988), “How job dissatisfaction leads to turnover”, Journal of Business and Psychology,Vol. 2, pp. 263-71.

Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., McDaniel, L. and Hill, J. (1999), “The unfolding model of voluntaryturnover: a replication and extension”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 450-62.

Leung, T., Siu, O. and Spector, P. (2000), “Faculty stressors, job satisfaction, and psychologicaldistress among university teachers in Hong Kong: the role of locus of control”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 121-38.

Locke, E.A. (1968), “What is job satisfaction?”, paper presented at the American PsychologicalAssociation Convention, San Francisco, 30 August-3 September, available at: www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/37/c3/e6.pdf (accessed15 June 2009).

Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J. and Green, M. (1995), “Objective and subjective work monotony:effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 29-42.

Moses, I. (1986), “Promotion of academic staff”, Higher Education, Vol. 12, pp. 35-47.

Okpara, J.O., Squillace, M. and Erondu, E.A. (2005), “Gender differences and job satisfaction:a study of university teachers in the United States”, Women in Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 177-90.

Oshagbemi, T. (1997a), “Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-39.

Oshagbemi, T. (1997b), “Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education”, Education andTraining, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 354-9.

Oshagbemi, T. (1999a), “Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction”,Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 108-23.

Oshagbemi, T. (1999b), “Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-itemmeasures?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 388-403.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000a), “How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching,research and administration and management?”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 124-36.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000b), “Correlates of pay satisfaction in higher education”, The InternationalJournal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-9.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000c), “Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 331-43.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000d), “Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?”, InternationalJournal of Social Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 213-26.

Oshagbemi, T. (2001), “How satisfied are academics with the behaviour/supervision of their linemanagers?”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 283-91.

Oshagbemi, T. (2003), “Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UKuniversities”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1210-32.

Ozyurt, A., Hayran, O. and Sur, H. (2006), “Predictors of burnout and job satisfaction amongTurkish physicians”, Q J Med, Vol. 99, pp. 161-9.

Pearson, D.A. and Seiler, R.E. (1983), “Environmental satisfiers in academe”, Higher Education,Vol. 12, pp. 35-47.

QAE19,2

168

Munhurrun, P.R., Naidoo, P. and Bhiwajee, S.D.L. (2009), “Employee perceptions of servicequality in a call centre”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 541-57.

Rhodes, C., Hollinshead, A. and Nevill, A. (2007), “Changing times, changing lives: a new look atjob satisfaction in two university Schools of Education located in the EnglishWest Midlands”, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-89.

Sahal, E. (2005), “The relationship among organizational culture and job satisfaction in academicorganizations the contentment and perception of the research employees who doctorate atthe Akdeniz University”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Akdeniz University, Antalya.

Santhapparaj, A.S. and Alam, S.S. (2005), “Job satisfaction among academic staff in privateuniversities in Malaysia”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 72-6.

Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C. and Lankau, M.J. (1993),“Improving construct measurement in management research: comments and aquantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy ofpaper-and-pencil survey-type instruments”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 385-417.

Sekoran, U. and Jauch, L.R. (1978), “Employee orientation and job satisfaction amongprofessional employees in hospitals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 43-56.

Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause, and Consequences, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Tan, P.P. and Hawkins, W.E. (2000), “The factor structure of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaireand participants of vocational rehabilitation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87, pp. 34-6.

Tang, T.L.P. and Talpade, M. (1999), “Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and co-workers:faculty and staff at a public institution”,Public PersonnelManagement, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 345-9.

Testa, M.R. (1999), “Satisfaction with organizational vision, job satisfaction and service efforts: anempirical investigation”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3pp. 154-61.

Tu, L., Bernard, P. and Maguiraga, L. (2005), “Comparative age differences of job satisfaction onfaculty at higher education level China and Taiwan”, International Journal of EducationalManagement, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 259-67.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., Engliand, B.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967), Manual for the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire, Minneapolis Industrial Center, University of Minnesota,Minneapolis, MN.

Williams, M.L. (1995), “Antecedents of employee benefit level satisfaction: a test of a model”,Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1097-128.

About the authorBoran Toker received his PhD from Dokuz Eylul University and is an Assistant Professor in theAlanya Faculty of Business at Akdeniz University in Alanya – Turkey. Boran Toker can becontacted at: borantoker@akdeniz.edu.tr

Job satisfactionof academic

staff

169

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints