JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS …/67531/metadc331543/m2/1/high... · JOB SATISFACTION...
Transcript of JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS …/67531/metadc331543/m2/1/high... · JOB SATISFACTION...
3 ~ 7 9
Ag/d
JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
AT NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES
IN CENTRAL THAILAND
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of
North Texas State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
Suthep Karoonlanjakorn, B.Ed., M.Ed.
Denton, Texas
May, 1986
Karoonlanjakorn, Suthep, Job Satisfaction Among Faculty
Members at Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central
Thailand. Doctor of Philosophy (Higher Education Adminis-
tration), May, 1986, 170 pp., 31 tables, bibliography, 93
titles.
The Faculty Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale
developed by Olin R. Wood (1973) was employed in this study
to determine what significant differences and level of
faculty job satisfaction existed on each facet of job
satisfaction and in overall job satisfaction among faculty
members at non-metropolitan teachers colleges in central
Thailand. The results of this study were compared with the
findings of Vatthaisong (1982) in a similar study of faculty
members at teachers colleges in northeast Thailand. The
instrument consists of two parts: the first part includes
seven demographic items, and the second part has 68 items
and uses a six-point rating scale for ten facets of job
satisfaction, including one-single item of overall
satisfaction. A sample of 288 faculty members at non-
metropolitan teachers colleges in central Thailand was
randomly selected. A total of 253 faculty members or 87.85
percent of the sample participated in this study.
Frequencies, percentages, means, one-way ANOVA, and two-way
ANOVA were used for analyses. The level of significance was
set at .05. The Scheffe" method for post hoc comparison was
adopted following one-way ANOVA.
Results of the study revealed that sources of
satisfaction for faculty in rank order of importance were
interpersonal relations, responsibility, achievement,
recognition, the work itself, growth, working conditions,
policy and administration, salary, and supervision. No
areas of dissatisfaction were revealed. The major source of
dissatisfaction in Vatthaisong's study was salary. This
study revealed that faculty members did not differ
significantly on the ten facets of satisfaction on the basis
of academic degrees, age, and faculty affiliations.
Nevertheless, three significant differences and two
significant interactions were found. First, faculty with
level three salary classification were more satisfied with
their achievements than those who were on level four.
Second, female faculty were more satisfied with
interpersonal relations than male faculty. Third,
instructors were better satisfied with the working
conditions than administrators. Fourth and fifth, the
longer the period of time male faculty were engaged in their
profession, the more satisfied they were with their personal
growth and their work. This finding was opposite to that of
female faculty.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter
III
INTRODUCTION
Theories of Motivation and Job Satisfaction Summary Statement of the Problem Importance of the Study Rationale for Hypotheses . . . . Hypotheses Definitions of Terms Background of the Study Limitations of the Study Basic Assumptions Chapter Bibliography
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Definition of Job Satisfaction Measures of Job Satisfaction Research Related to Theories of Motivation
and Job Satisfaction Demographic Variables and Job Satisfaction Sex Variable and Job Satisfaction Other Variables Related to Job Satisfaction Summary Chapter Bibliography
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection Procedure and Sample Instrumentation Analysis and Treatment of Data . . , Chapter Bibliography
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA
Analysis of Level of Faculty Job Satisfaction . .
Testing the First Null Hypothesis . . . . . ' Testing the Second Null Hypothesis . . . . Comparing the Results of This Research With the Results Discovered by Vatthaisong,
Summary
Page
v
1 16 18 20 21 23 24 24 28 28 29
33
33 34
37 42 58 64 72 76
81
81 86 89 90
92
93 98
119
122 128
i n
Chapter Page
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131
Summary 131 Findings and Conclusions 135 Implications 138 Recommendations 144 Chapter Bibliography 147
APPENDIXES A. Tables XXX and XXXI 149 B. Cover Letter and Instrument 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY 161
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Name of Each College and Number of Divisions 82
II. Total Faculty Members, Sample Size, and Frequency/Percentage of Responses from Six Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand 83
III. Percentage of Demographic Classifications of Faculty Members at Six Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand . . . . 85
IV. Frequency of Response for Level of Satisfaction among Faculty Members at Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand, Defined by Ten Facets 95
V. Overall Level of Satisfaction among Faculty Members at Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand, Defined by Item 1 through Item 67 97
VI. Overall Level of Satisfaction among Faculty Members at Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand, Defined by Item 68 98
VII. Means for Ten Facets Defined by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 100
VIII. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Achievement Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . . 102
IX. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Growth Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . 102
X. Comparison of Means for the Growth Facet Defined by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 203
XI. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Interpersonal Relations Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years
Table
XII
of Teaching Experience
Page
104
Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Policy and Administration Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 105
XIII. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Recognition Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . 106
XIV. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Responsibility Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 107
XV. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Salary Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . . . . 108
XVI. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Supervision Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . 108
XVII. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Work Itself Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience . . . 109
XVIII. Comparison of Means for the Work Itself Facet Defined by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience H O
XIX. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Working Conditions Facet among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience H I
XX. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Ten Facets among Faculty Members by Age H 2
XXI. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Ten Facets among Faculty Members by Degree Levels 113
XXII. Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Ten Facets among Faculty Members by Salary Levels 114
XXIII. Pairwise Comparison of Sample Means
VI
Table
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
Page
Contributed by Faculty Members at Three Different Salary Levels on the Achievement Facet of Job Satisfaction . . . . 115
Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Ten Facets among Faculty Members by Faculty Affiliations 117
Comparison of Job Satisfaction Based on the Ten Facets among Faculty Members by Work Positions 118
Means for the Overall Satisfaction (Item 68) Defined by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 120
Comparison of Overall Satisfaction Based on a Single Item (Item 68) among Faculty Members by Sex and Years of Teaching Experience 121
Comparison of Overall Satisfaction Based on a Single Item (Item 68) among Faculty Members by All the Selected Variables 123
Comparison of Results of the Two Studies on the Level of Faculty Job Satisfaction with Each of the Ten Facets 125
Sample Characteristics at Six Non-Metropolitan Teachers Colleges in Central Thailand, Defined by Selected Demographic Classifications . . . . 150
Response Frequency for the Total Sample Based on Items
vi 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The formal study of job satisfaction did not start
until the Hawthorne studies in the early 1930s (H y &
Miskel, 1982). Until the 1970s, job productivity and job
satisfaction provided the major focus for studies for nearly
forty years; however, the pendulum swung to job satisfaction
only- anc^ there it has rested for some ten or fifteen years.
Edwin A. Locke estimated that a minimum of 3,350 articles
were published on the subject by early 1972 (Locke, 1976).
Even a cursory review of the literature today reveals that
research on job satisfaction has continued to be a topic of
major interest.
Theories of Motivation and Job Satisfaction
Why is job satisfaction so attractive as a research
topic? Early proponents of the human relations approach
convinced both theorists and administrators alike that a
happy worker is a productive worker.
Motivation and job satisfaction are not the same thing;
however, far too often these terms are confused each other.
According to Hellriegel and Slocum (1979), satisfaction is
an end-state resulting from the attainment of some goal. It
2
is the worker's affective responses to or feelings about
aspects of the work situation. Motivation is primarily
concerned with an individual's desires and how those desires
can be fulfilled in the work situation. Suppose that, for
example, there are subgroups in a basketball game: the
players, the coach, and the owner. The coach must be able
to motivate the players to achieve the goal of the
01 ganizatiojj winning basketball "ames. The winning of
basketball games will give the players, coach, and owner
satisfaction.
Two categories have been established to describe the
theories of motivation (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and
Weick, 1970). The content theories describe the actual
factors motivating an individual, such as pay and
interesting work. The second category includes what is
called the process theories. These theories describe the
actual process through which an individual goes as he is
motivated to pursue a particular course of action.
Content Theories of Motivation
Three important content theories of motivation are
Maslow's need hierarchy, Herzberg's two-factor theory, and
the existence, relatedness, and growth (ERG) theory. All
three theories advance the basic argument that human needs
constitute the main ariving force behind employee behavior
in organizational settings. Content theories delineate
3
specific needs, motives, expectancies, and antecedents to
behavior. These theories have stimulated an extensive
number of research studies and numerous application
endeavors by managers.
Maslow's Need Hierarchy.--The crux of Maslow's theory
is that needs are arranged in a hierarchy (1954). The
lowest-level needs are the physiological and the highest
level are the self-actualization needs. The postulation of
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is that when the basic human
needs to sustain life itself--food, clothing, shelter--are
satisfied to the degree needed for the sufficient operation
of the body, other higher-order needs emerge. Once safety
needs are fairly well satisfied, social or affiliation needs
will emerge as dominant in the need structure. After
individuals begin to satisfy their need to belong to their
group, then they feel the need for esteem—both self-esteem
and recog-nition from others. Satisfaction of these esteem
needs produces feelings of self-confidence, prestige, power
and control. People begin to feel that they are useful and
have some effect on their environment. Once esteem needs
begin to be adequately satisfied, the self-actualization
needs, the desire to become what one is capable of becoming,
become more prepotent.
However, it is not necessary that one level of needs be
completely satisfied before the next level emerges as the
4
most important. In reality, most people in our society tend
to be partially satisfied at each level and partially
unsatisfied, with greater satisfaction tending to occur at
the physiological and safety levels than at the social,
esteem, and self-actualization levels (Hersey and Blanchard,
1977).
Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory.--A popular content theory
of motivation has been proposed by Hersberg, Mausner, and
Snyderman (1959). The theory, which is variously termed
factor, dual-factor, motivator-hygiene, or simply Herzberg1s
theory has been widely accepted by administrators. Simply
stated, Herzberg"s theory of motivation (or job
satisfaction) is a two-dimensional theory. Its basic
postulate is that one set of rewards contributes to job
dissatisfaction. One set of rewards concerns factors that
motivate. Examples falling under this label are
achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and
advancement. These factors are at the heart of the job
itself, and they have the power to sustain high levels of
approximate employee work behavior. There are certain
hygiene factors which create dissatisfaction if taken away,
but these factors have no substantial influence upon
behavior when they are added. Examples of these are
interpersonal relations-subordinates, interpersonal
relations-superordinates, interpersonal relations-peers.
5
supervision-technical, policy and administration, working
conditions, personal life, pay and other factors peripheral
to the job.
Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (ERG) Theory.--
Another content theory of motivation is Alderfer's
existence, relatedness, and growth (ERG) theory (1972).
This theory is, in fact, simply the reformation of Maslow's
need hierarchy into three levels of needs.
Objects can satisfy needs. Food and drink can satisfy
hunger and thirst, which are existence needs. In
organizations, existence needs can be met by pay, fringe
benefits, and a pleasant environment. However, when objects
are not enough to meet everyone's needs for them, what
economists call a zero-sum game will occur. In this view
one person's gain is another's loss. Personal satisfaction
can be gauged beyond existing objects by comparison of what
one receives with what others receive in the same situation.
Relatedness needs can be met by reciprocation of
thoughts and feelings between an individual and significant
others such as family members, supervisors, co-workers,
subordinates, friends, and enemies. Alderfer states that
the exchange or expression of anger and hostility is a very
important part of meaningful interpersonal relationships,
just as is the expression of warmth and closeness (Alderfer,
1972, p. 11).
6
Growth needs can be satisfied when individuals engage
in problem solving that uses their capacities fully and
develops new capabilities. A person who possesses ful-
fillment of growth needs has a sense of greater wholeness or
fullness as a human being.
Three basic propositions describe the relationships
between desire for the target of certain need groups and
satisfaction of that desire. First, the less a need is
satisfied, the more it is desired. Second, the less that
relatedness needs are satisfied, the more the targets of
existence needs are desired. Third, the more that existence
needs are satisfied, the more the targets of relatedness
needs are desired. Hoy and Miskel (1982) explain that this
progression occurs because satisfaction of existence or
relateness desires frees the individual from the effort
required to satisfy either of them.
Process Theories of Motivation
Hellriegel and Slocum (1979) explain that the content
theories of motivation provide managers with an under-
standing of the particular work-related factors that arouse
employees. But these theories provide little insight into
why people choose a particular behavioral pattern to
accomplish work goals. This aspect of choice is the
objective of process theories. Process theories attempt to
explain and describe the process by which behavior is
7
energized, how it is directed, how it is sustained, and how
it is stopped. In this section, three process theories—
expectancy theory, equity theory, and goal theory--will be
examined.
Expectancy Theory. One of the more popular versions of
expectancy theories was developed by Vroom and modified by
others (Vroom, 1964; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Gran, 1969,
Porter & Lawler III, 1968). Expectancy theory rests on two
fundamental premises. First, individuals make decisions
about their own behavior in organizations using their
abilities to think, reason, and anticipate future events.
Second, forces in the individual and the environment combine
to determine behavior. Individual values and attitudes, for
instance, interact with environmental components, such as
role expectations and organizational climate, to influence
behavior. The expectancy model is a good predictor of job
satisfaction and a not so good but still statistically
significant one for performance. Overall, most research
findings have supported the theory that people work hard
when they think that working hard is likely to lead to
desirable rewards from the organization (Hoy & Miskel,
1982).
Equity Theory.—Adams (1963) explains that whenever two
individuals exchange anything, there is the possibility that
one or both of them will feel that the exchange was
8
inequitable. Such is frequently the case when a man
exchanges his services for pay. This situation occurs in
organizations when the person finds his inputs and outcomes
are not in balance in relation to those of others and
feelings of inequality result.
The existence of perceived inequality creates tension
to restore equity: the greater the inequity, the greater the
tension. Depending upon the source and intensity of the
inequity, a number of courses of action can be followed.
For example, individuals may attempt to increase or decrease
their inputs if they are low or high relative to those of
the comparison person. Or they may increase or decrease
their outcomes by increasing or decreasing their efforts.
If these courses of actions are not possible, individuals
may stay away from the work situation so that their
perceptions are not continuously reinforced. The extreme
course of action is to quit the job. Finally, the theory
raises the issue of methods for inequity resolution. The
inequitable situation can cause morale, turnover, and
absenteeism problems.
Goal Theory.--Locke and his associates (Locke, 1968;
Locke, Cartledge, & Knerr, 1970; Mento, Cartledge, & Locke,
1980) originally stated their goal theory in 1968. A goal,
according to this theory, is simply what an individual
consciously is trying to do. The basic supposition of the
9
theory is that intentions to achieve a goal constitute the
primary motivating forces behind work behavior. Two
assumptions of the theory are that specific goals are
superior to general goals and difficult goals lead to
greater effort than easy goals.
The process of goal-setting begins with the assumption
that the individual knows something about the nature and
properties of things that exist in the work environment.
From the question of which actions will enhance the
individual's well-being, the answer will be that values of
elements in the environment have to be judged first. The
individual judges which behaviors are good or bad, right or
wrong, or for or against personal interests.
Locke (1968) notes that most human action is purposive;
behavior is regulated and maintained by goals and in-
tentions. Hoy and Miskel (1982, pp. 162-163) conclude that
the most fundamental effect of goals on mental or physical
actions is to direct thoughts and overt behavior to one end
rather than another. Goals, in the process of directing
action, also regulate expenditure of both mental
concentration and physical effort. One action to a goal may
require more effort than another action to the same goal.
10
Implications for Practice: Theory X, Theory Y Contingency Theory and Criticism on"fetivation Th^rv,
Which Are Related to Job Satisfaction
Theory x and theory y are presented here because they
clearly offer fundamental alternatives for managing the
employee and work. Contingency theory provides another
practical application of motivation theory to
administration. Finally, criticism suggests some ideas
about why motivation theory does not work.
Theory X and Theory Y.—Douglas McGregor (1960), a
major theorist in the human resources school, has suggested
that managers have developed two distinct philosophies
concerning the roles they play in organizations. These two
philosophies, which he called theory x and theory y,
represent opposite points of view. One is pessimistic and
the other is optimistic. The basic characteristics of
theory x are as follows:
The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.
Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives.
The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all (McGregor, 1960, pp. •3 J / •
These propositions suggest that a manager who sees his
role in terms of theory x would tend to be autocratic.
11
What McGregor proposed as an alternative was theory y, which
rests on an entirely different set of assumptions.
The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. . . , External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. . . . Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed. . . . Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. . . . The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but seek responsibility. , . . The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. * • Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human^being are only partially utilized (McGregor 1963,
McGregor argues that individuals want to exercise
responsibility and that managers should allow them to do so.
In this fashion, the human resources in an organization are
optionally utilized (Gannon, 1979, p. 33).
Contingency Theory.--Morse and Lorsch (1970) have
similar viewpoints to those of Hoy and Miskel (1982). The
former say that theory x works well in some situations,
although there are also some situations where it does not
work effectively. At the same time, the approach based on
theory y, while it has produced good results in some
situations, does not always do so. Hoy and Miskel observe
that McGregor's theory oversimplifies reality in two ways.
First, employees are viewed as fitting into the pattern
12
envisioned by theory x or theory y. A more realistic
position is that employee work habits lie along a continuum
ranging from x to y. The individuals may exhibit some of
the characteristics postulated by theory x and some by
theory y. Second, theory y places a great deal of
responsibility for achievement on both workers and
administrators.
Based on the shortcomings of theory x and theory y,
Morse and Lorsch have been involved in a study to
investigate the affect of different organizations upon the
motivation of organization members. Their study provides
surprising results and suggests a new set of basic as-
sumptions which move beyond theory y into what is called
"Contingency Theory: the fit between task, organization, and
people." These theoretical assumptions emphasize that the
appropriate pattern of organization is contingent on the
nature of the work to be done and on the particular needs of
the people involved.
The contingency theory requires a new set of
assumptions.
1. Human beings bring varying patterns of needs and
motives into the work organization, but one central
need is to achieve a sense of competence.
2. The sense of competence motive, while it exists in
all human beings, may be fulfilled in different ways
13
by different people depending on how this need
interacts with the strengths of the individuals'
other needs--such as those for power, independence,
structure, achievement, and affiliation.
3. Competence motivation is most likely to be fulfilled
when there is fit between task and organization.
4. Sense of competence continues to motivate even when a
competence goal is achieved; once one goal is
reached, a new, higher one is set.
The assumptions of Morse and Lorsch's theory have
implications for managers. There are indications that
people will gradually gravitate into organizations that fit
their particular personalities. Managers can help this
process by becoming more aware of what psychological needs
seem to best fit the tasks available in the organizational
setting and by trying to shape personnel selection criteria
to take account of these needs.
Given the new needs of younger employees for more
autonomy, it may well be that the more participative
approach is the most appropriate. But there will still be
many situations in which the more controlled and formalized
organization is desirable. Such an organization need not be
coercive or punitive. If it makes sense to the individuals
involved, given their needs and their jobs, they will find
it rewarding and motivating„
14
Criticism on Motivation Theory. — A criticism on using
motivational theories in organizations is made by Levinson
11973). He does not agree that the "carrot and stick"
motivates people in work situations, The carrot-and-stick
approach, as identified by Hoy and Miskel (1982) as theory
x, is a "jackass fallacy" in Levinson's view. Uncon-
sciously, the boss is the manipulator and controller, and
the subordinate is the jackass. People inevitably respond
to the carrot-and-stick by trying to get more of the carrot
while protecting themselves against the stick. This
predictable phenomenon has led to the formation of unions,
the frequent sabotage of management's motivation efforts,
and the characteristic employee suspicion of management's
motivational techniques.
Leadership involves an understanding of motivation. If
the leaders in organizations are not responsive to what is
called a crisis in motivation," or according to Levinson,
the great jackass fallacy," the workers will feel resentful
and defeated. They are no longer motivated by competitive
spirit because the carrots and the sticks mean less. They
simply do as they are told. They usually stay until re-
tirement unless they are among the "deadwood" that is
cleaned out when a new management takes over.
Morse and Lorsch and Levinson agree on the view that
punishment is not the way for organizations to attempt to be
15
effective. According to Levinson, the result of a reward-
punishment attitude toward motivation is a continuing battle
between those who seek to wield power and those who are
subject to it. The consequences of this battle are
increased inefficiency, lowered productivity, heightened
absenteeism, theft, and sometimes outright sabotage.
Fitzgerald (1971) mentions a similar point of view that
the growing pressures for economy and productivity also give
rise to other labor problems that increase costs, ab-
senteeism and turnover, idleness and featherbedding, product
defects and errors. All this is reflected in one of the
more familiar questions one hears at management
seminars,"How can I motivate my employees?" This is not a
pleasant question to ponder, especially for those managers
confronted with mounting problems of high employee turnover,
low productivity, and poor morale. Fitzgerald suggests that
the roots of such problems go deeper than is generally
recognized, and the major tenets of motivation theory offer
solutions that are not quite relevant to what is going on in
the workplace. Instead of thinking of employees as objects,
to be manipulated by this or that theoretical approach,
management must strive to effect fundamental, value-oriented
changes in the structure of rationalized work systems.
Fitzgerald points out that what is needed is not merely
the "willingness to confront change," but a commitment to go
16
beyond changes in structure and procedures. He adds that
the mixes of "training" to improve skills and climate, of
job enlargement, and of organizational development and
participation are recommended.
Summary
This introductory section discussed the dynamics of
motivation. Although satisfaction and motivation are
different phenomena, they are closely related to each other.
Managers who know how to motivate workers can cause a higher
level of job satisfaction among those workers. The modern
approach to motivation can be divided into content and
process theories. The Herzberg, Maslow, and Alderfer models
attempt to identify specific content factors that motivate
employees. Among these models, the Herzberg model is a
useful explanation of job satisfaction.
The Vroom, Adams, and Locke models are concerned with
answering the question of how individual behavior is
energized, directed, maintained, and stopped. Expectancy
theory of motivation is concerned with how the expectations
of a person influence behavior. Inequity theory focuses on
comparisons, tension, and tension reduction. Goal theory of
motivation is concerned with intentions of individual to
achieve a goal. Such intentions constitute the primary
motivating forces behind work behavior.
17
McGregor s theory x and theory y offer fundamental
alternatives for managing employees and work. The Morse and
Lorsch model describes their contingency theory in com-
parison and contrast with McGregor's theory x and theory y.
Finally, Fitzgerald argues that the major tenets of
motivation theory offer some solutions that are not quite
relevant to what is going on in the workplace. He, then,
suggests value-oriented changes in the structure of
rationalized work systems.
Job satisfaction is an end—state resulting from the
attainment of some goal. It is the worker's affective
responses to or feelings about aspects of the work
situation. Whatever theories or methods the managers in
organization use to motivate their employees do undoubtedly
affect employees' job satisfaction. Among competing
theories of motivation, Herzberg's two-factor theory is
cited by many researchers, for instance, Sergiovanni (1966),
McGreal (1968/1969), Leon (1973/1974), Wood (1976), and
Vatthaisong (1982/1983), as the most suitable theory for
studying faculty job satisfaction. The reason is that
Herzberg's theory incorporates numerous facets of job
satisfaction.
No matter what the theorists of motivation explain and
what results may yield in research done in the United
States, more studies in job satisfaction, especially in
18
higher education, need to be conducted widely. The dearth of
research in this field in Thailand when compared with the
large amount in the United States is significant. Fur-
thermore, one question is raised: Are the results of a
similar study using the same instrument with a sample from a
different region of Thailand similar to or different from
the results of Vatthaisong's study?
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to investigate and
analyze job satisfaction of faculty members at non-
metropolitan teachers colleges in central Thailand. The
investigation was based on ten facets of job satisfaction,
namely achievement, recognition, growth, the work itself,
responsibilities, salary, administrative policies,
supervision, interpersonal relations, and working condition.
The emphases of the study were not only to discover the
results but also to compare some of the results of this
study to Vatthaisong's (1982/1983) findings. The emphases
were as follows:
1. To determine the level of job satisfaction among
faculty members with respect to each of the ten
facets cited above;
2. To compare job satisfaction among faculty members on
each of the ten facets and determine whether any
significant differences exist on the basis of their
19
demographic classifications (sex and years of
teaching experience at the college level, salary
levels, academic degrees, age, position as an
instructor or administrator, and faculty
affiliations);
3. To compare overall job satisfaction among faculty
members according to their demographic classi-
fications ;
4• To compare the results of this research with the
findings of Vatthaisong, especially those dealing
with sex and years of teaching experience.
The specific research cjuestions were the following.
1. To what extent do the faculty members express job
satisfaction as measured by the ten facets of a
modified form of the Wood Job Satisfaction
Instrument?
2. Do significant correlations exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their job
satisfaction on the ten facets of a modified form of
the Wood Job Satisfaction Instrument?
3. Do significant differences exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their
overall job satisfaction?
4. Are central Thailand faculty members' job
satisfaction levels congruent with Vatthaisong's
findings of faculty members in northeast Thailand?
20
Importance of the Study-
Under a centralized educational system in Thailand
(Ministry of Education, 1973), Thai government officials are
governed in bureaucratic organizational structures.
According to Levinson (1973), such structures are based on a
military model that assumes complete control of the
organization by those at the top. In pure form, it is a
rAgid hierarchy, complete with detailed job descriptions and
fixed, measurable objectives. The bureaucratic structure
requires everyone at every level to be dependent on those at
higher levels. One s fate is decided by a distant "they"
who are beyond his influence and control. Even presidents
at teachers colleges in Thailand still lack autonomy in such
local issues as promotion, tenure, and the determination of
internal organizational structure (Suntrayuth, 1984/1985).
Levinson comments further that while the bureaucratic
structure, with its heavy emphasis on internal competition
for power and position, is often touted as a device for
achievement, it is actually a system which defeats
individuals. Bureaucratic structure, with its implicit
power-struggle orientation, increases infighting, empire-
building, rivalry, and a sense of futility (Levinson, 1973).
A careful comparison of variables from a sample of
faculty members in six non-metropolitan teachers colleges in
central Thailand may lead to the discovery of significant
21
differences in job satisfaction. A comparison of faculty-
members' job satisfaction might yield some clues as to the
possible factors related to job satisfaction, which might,
in turn, provoke research that would help us to devise ways
of increasing job satisfaction among faculty members at
teachers colleges in Thailand, who are under the
bureaucratic organizational structure. Finally, the
findings of this study should provide information for
teachers college administrators, which will assist them in
developing administrative policies conducive to the
£ulfillment of the needs of faculty members.
Rationale for Hypotheses
According to Vatthaisong's finding , a major source of
dissatisfaction among faculty members was salary
(1982/1983). The present research attempted to explore
further the relationship of salary to job satisfaction.
Grahn et al. (1981) have reported the results of their
research conducted among faculty at the General College of
the University of Minnesota. The study sought to determine
the degree of satisfaction of faculty who have different
salary levels, academic degree levels, length of service and
sex. Grahn et al. found that faculty with salaries of
$30,000 or over were most satisfied with advancement,
security, and compensation. Ph.D. faculty were more
satisfied with security and creativity. Faculty with
22
longest service were most satisfied with security, social
status, and working conditions. Female faculty were more
satisfied with achievement, activity, authority, and social
service, and less satisfied with advancement and security.
Male faculty were more satisfied than women with advancement
and security.
Vaughn and Dunn observed that "age seems to have a
predictable influence upon job satisfaction. Generally, the
young are more dissatisfied than the old" (Vaughn & Dunn,
1974). • They did not test this observation, but this
researcher attempted to test it.
Within the job satisfaction literature, there is almost
a universal agreement on the positive relationship between
job level and job satisfaction (Lynch & Verdin, 1983). The
present researcher also examined this relationship. This
study also included an examination of statistical dif-
ferences in job satisfaction among faculty members, those
who taught only, and those who were both administrators and
instructors.
The length of service at a particular college is
another factor in job satisfaction which was examined. As
the length of time in the profession increases, the reported
levels of satisfaction increase according to Lynch and
Verdin (p. 445). The relationship of job satisfaction and
academic degrees had been tested by Grahn et al. (1981).
This researcher made an attempt to examine it also.
23
Hypotheses
In this investigation of job satisfaction among faculty
members at non-metropolitan teachers colleges in central
Thailand, the following hypotheses were formulated.
1. No significant differences exist between or among the
following faculty groups with respect to the ten
facets of job satisfaction: (1) male and female
faculty; (2) faculty with under ten years of teaching
experience and those with over ten years of teaching
experience; (3) faculty with bachelor's degrees and
faculty with master's degrees or higher; (4) faculty
who are in different age categories; (5) faculty who
3^© instructors and administrators; (6) faculty who
belong to different categories of faculty affi-
liations; and (7) faculty who are in different
categories for their salary levels.
2. No significant difference exists in faculty members'
job satisfaction between or among the following
groups--(1) male and female faculty, (2) faculty with
under ten years of teaching experience, and those
with over ten years of teaching experience, (3)
different groups of faculty classified by work
positions, age, salary levels, academic degrees, and
faculty affiliations.
24
Definitions of Terms
The operational definitions of the following terms are
included for this study.
Faculty Members.--The term Faculty members is used to
refer to two discrete groups: first, faculty members who are
administrators and instructors at the same time and second,
faculty members who are instructors only.
Administrators.--The term administrators includes
presidents, vice-presidents, deans, and department
chairpersons.
Faculty Affiliations.--The term faculty affiliations
refers to the affiliations of faculty members to their
specific departments; namely, faculty of education, faculty
of sciences and faculty of humanities and social sciences.
Department of Teacher Education.—The department to
which all the teachers colleges have to report under the
centralized administration system.
Background of the Study
The proposed study was motivated by previous research
on job satisfaction in different kinds of organizations in
the United States and Canada. Much of the interest in job
satisfaction stems from the assumption that a high level of
satisfaction will lead to a high level of job performance.
However, some evidence suggests that a high level of job
performance in itself can lead to job satisfaction (Schwab &
Cummings, 1970).
25
Lawler (1971) has suggested that initial interest in
job satisfaction was stimulated by the classic works of
Roethlisberger and Dickson's Management and the Worker
(1939) and Hoppock s monograph "Job Satisfaction" (1935).
These works demonstrated the possibility of doing
quantitative research on job satisfaction. Young (1982)
says that the construct of satisfaction has been of interest
to researchers for at least five decades. A body of
literature containing over 3,000 studies has been created as
a result of the interest in this concept (Locke, 1969).
In an attempt to summarize the literature on job
satisfaction, Locke has categorized the studies into three
schools of thought. One school, the physical-economic
school, grew out of Frederick Winslow Taylor's thesis on
scientific management (Locke, 1976). Taylor considered the
influence of the physical arrangements of work, fatigue, and
pay on job satisfaction. Another, the human-relations
school, is a basic outgrowth of Mayo's historical work that
is more commonly known as the "Hawthorne Studies" (1970).
This school was later developed by the universities of
Michigan and Ohio State, emphasizing the relationships of
good supervision, informal work groups, and friendly
employer-employee relationships on satisfaction. The third,
the work-itself school, has its underpinnings in the works
of Maslow (1954) and Herzberg (1966). The emphasis of this
26
approach is on the actual work tasks performed by an
employee and job satisfaction is viewed as a function of the
work performed.
The overall level of job satisfaction in certain
segments of the labor force has been studied for several
decades (Young, 1982). More recently, job satisfaction has
become of interest to those examining education (Schmidt,
1976). Young said that the researchers addressing job
satisfaction in education settings have typically restricted
their subject pools to administrative and instructional
personnel (1982, p. 111).
Young also described further the two groups of subjects
as follows:
The administrative personnel for which job satisfaction studies have been conducted in higher education are presidents, assistants to presidents, deans, department chairpersons, registrars, and placement directors. Job satisfaction studies have also been conducted with various administrative personnel in K-12 public education. The specific personnel examined in the setting were superintendents, pupil personnel directors, principal, and assistant principals. Various instructional groups have also been assessed: elementary teachers, middle school teachers, community college faculty, home economics faculty, college English teachers, and college professors (Young, 1982, p. 111).
Literature about job satisfaction studies conducted in
higher education in Thailand is extremely sparse when
compared to research in the United States. A study of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in
27
higher education by Vatthaisong is one of a very few
reported research efforts available at the present
(Vatthaisong, 1982/1983). He employed a questionnaire
comprising 67 items for measuring job satisfaction and one
single item dealing with overall satisfaction. His subjects
comprised the faculty members of six teacher training
institutions in northeast Thailand. His findings show that
faculty members were not satisfied with their salaries.
Faculty with over ten years teaching experience were more
satisfied with their achievements, working conditions and
had a higher overall degree of satisfaction than faculty
with under ten years experience. No difference was found in
satisfaction between the sexes.
The differences between Vatthaisong's and this present
study are the scope and nature of study. Vatthaisong's
subjects were faculty members who were identified as
instructors. They were selected from six teachers colleges
or what he called teacher training institutions in northeast
Thailand. The subjects for the present study were
characterized as faculty members who were only instructors
and those who were instructors and administrators at the
same time. They were selected from the six non-metropolitan
teachers colleges in central Thailand. Vatthaisong's
research compared the job satisfaction of faculty members on
the basis of teaching experience and sex. The present study
28
was designed to compare its findings with those in his
study. In addition, the present research included more
variables related to age, levels of education, salary
levels, work positions, and faculty affiliations.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited to faculty members and
administrators at six non-metropolitan teachers colleges in
central Thailand, namely, Nakhon Pathom Teachers College,
Karnchana Buri Teachers College, Ayuthaya Teachers College,
Nakhon Sawan Teachers College, Chachoengsao Teachers
College, and Chantha Buri Teachers College. Therefore, the
results of the study could not be generalized to the other
teachers colleges in other regions of Thailand.
Basic Assumptions
The following basic assumptions are made for this
study.
1. It is assumed that the random sample chosen was
representative of all the faculty members in the six
teachers colleges included in the study.
2• It is assumed that the faculty members expressed
their attitudes honestly through the questionnaire
employed in this study.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 437-445.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial Behavior, Performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fitzgerald, T.H. (1971). Why motivation theory doesn't work. Harvard Business Review, 49, 37-44.
Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L.L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 237-257. ~~
Gannon, M.J. (1979). Organizational behavior: A managerial and organizational perspective. Boston: Brown and Company.
Gran, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 53, 1-25.
Grahn, J. et al. (1981). General college job satisfaction survey, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 716)
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. (1979). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Herzburg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World. ~~~
29
30
Herzburg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration, theory, research, and practice. New York: Random House.
Lawler, E.E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leon, J.S. (1974). An investigation of the applicability of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction among college and university professors (Doctoral dissertation. University of Arkansas, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 5397A.
Levinson, H. (1973). Asinine attitudes toward motivation. Harvard Business Review, 51, 70-76.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C.S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal-setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 135-13~9~!
Lynch, B.P., & Verdin, J.A. (1983). Job satisfaction in libraries: Relationship of the work itself, age, sex, occupational group, tenure, supervisory level, career commitment, and library department. Library Quarterly .53, 434-447. i
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mayo, G.E. (1970). The first inquiry. In H.F. Merrill (Ed.), Classics in management (pp. 379-388). New York: American Management Association, Inc.
31
McGreal, T.L. (1969). An investigation of organizational variables affecting teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International 29, 2067A. — '
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D., & Locke, E.A. (1980). Maryland vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419-440. — —
Ministry of Education (1973). The Department of Teacher Training: Its work and organization. Banqkok, Thailand.
Morse, J.J., & Lorsch, L.W. (1970). Beyond theory y. Harvard Business Review, 48, 61-68.
Porter, L.W., & Lawler III, E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schmidt, G.L. (1976). Job satisfaction among secondary school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 2, 68-86. ~
Schwab, D.P., & Cummings, L.L. (1970). Theories of performance and satisfaction: A review. Industrial Relations, 9, 408-430.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1966). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Rochester, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 1235X1
Suntrayuth, S. (1985). A comparison of present and preferred institutional goals among board members, administrators, and faculty of teacher colleges in Bangkok, Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3291A. ~ —
Vatthaisong, A. (1983). A study of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in teacher
32
training institutions in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 468A. "
Vaughn, W.J., & Dunn, J.D. (1974). A study of job satisfaction in six university libraries. College & Research Libraries, 35, 163-177.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wood, O.R. (1976). A research project: Measuring job satisfaction of the community college staff. Community College Review, 3 (3), 57-67.
Young, I.P. (1982). A multivariable study of administrator leadership behavior and custodian satisfaction. Planning & Changing, 13, 111-123.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of related literature in this study is
divided into six major parts. It begins with a definition
of job satisfaction. In the second part, it is concerned
with measures of job satisfaction. In the third part, it
presents research related to theories of motivation and job
satisfaction. The fourth part consists of demographic
variables and job satisfaction. The fifth part deals with
the variable of sex and job satisfaction. The last part
deals with all other variables related to job satisfaction.
Definition of Job Satisfaction
Before further details of job satisfaction are
presented, an attempt to define job satisfaction is in
order. The classical definition was given by Robert Hoppock
(1935) . He defined job satisfaction as any combination of
psychological, physiological, and environmental cir-
cumstances that cause a person to say, "I am satisfied with
my job. Job satisfaction has been conceived as the
affective orientations of individuals toward work; it
results when on-the-job experiences relate to the
individual's values and needs (Smith, 1974).
33
34
Job satisfaction is the feeling(s) one has about his or
her job. It is possible that feelings of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction occur only when a question is asked of the
individual, or when circumstances pose potential alter-
natives (favorable or unfavorable) to him or her which
require him or her to make an evaluation. The feelings of
an individual about various aspects of his or her job are
not absolute, but relative to the alternatives or lack of
alternatives available to him or her. Feelings are also
influenced by his or her previous experiences (Dunn &
Stephens, 1972). Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1964)
conclude that job satisfaction is an internal indicator of
correspondence, i.e., it represents the individual worker's
appraisal of the extent to which the work environment
fulfills his or her requirements. Locke defines job
satisfaction as a function of the perceived relationship
between what on wants from one's job and what one perceives
it as offering (Locke, 1969).
Measures of Job Satisfaction
The typical method of measuring job satisfaction is to
employ questionnaires. According to Dunn and Stephens
(1972), six instruments for measuring job satisfaction were
developed from the early 1930s to the 1960s. The first
instrument developed to measure job satisfaction was the
Hoppock scale. This scale was used in a survey of job
35
satisfaction in New Hope, Pennsylvania, in 1933. it is
interesting to note that Hoppock's work was done near the
beginning of the human relations movement, a movement that
placed great emphasis upon morale and job satisfaction.
(Dunn & Stephens, 1972).
The Brayfield-Rothe index of job satisfaction was the
second instrument that was developed. Between the time of
Hoppock s early attempts at measuring satisfaction and 1946
very little seems to have been done in regard to the problem
of measuring job satisfaction. In 1946, Arthur H.
Brayfield reported upon the construction of an index of job
satisfaction in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of
Minnesota library, and in 1951 Brayfield and Rothe reported
upon their construction of this instrument in the Journal of
Applied Psychology (Dunn & Stephens, 1972).
The third measure developed was the General Motors
Faces Scale. The Faces Scale may be used for obtaining a
summary rating of job satisfaction. In the Cornell studies
it was found that the faces method adequately met criteria
of convergent and discriminant validity (Dunn & Stephens,
1972). The reliability score for this instrument is not
available from General Motors, who developed the instrument,
because they no longer find it an acceptable instrument for
their use.
36
The fourth measure to be developed was the SRA Employee
Inventory. This inventory has been one of the most widely
used of the currently available instruments for measuring
job satisfaction. Science Research Associates, Inc., has
developed extensive norms for the SRA Employee Inventory.
SRA is prepared to administer, score by computer, and
interpret the results of the SRA inventory (Dunn & Stephens,
1972).
The fifth measure which was mentioned by Dunn and
Stephens (1972) was the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). This
instrument was copyrighted by Patricia Cain Smith, who in
1970 was professor of psychology at Bowling Green State
University. The copyright for the JDI is now held by
Bowling Green State University. The JDI measures
satisfaction with five areas of jobs: work itself, pay,
promotion opportunities, supervision, and people on the job.
The sixth measure developed by Weiss, Dawis, England,
and Lofquist (1967) is the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Each of twenty facets in the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire is measured by five items.
Employees indicate their feelings about each item on a five-
point Lakert scale ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very
satisfied. ' Studies that have compared responses to common
facets of the JDI and MSQ have found them to be fairly
highly related.
37
The last measure, developed by Wood (1973/1974), is the
Faculty Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale. The
instrument is based on ten facets selected from the Herzberg
Motivation-Hygiene theory as follows: achievement, growth,
interpersonal relations, policy and administration, re-
cognition, responsibility, salary, supervision, the work
itself, and working conditions. Its face, content, and
construct validity on the basis of procedures used in the
development of the instrument, the results of factor
analysis, reliability coefficients for internal consistency
and test-retest, and recommendations from a panel of experts
led to the conclusion that the validity, reliability, and
level of refinement of the instrument were adequate for the
collection of research datct.
Research Related to Theories of Motivation and Job Satisfaction
Research concerned with the application of theories of
motivation and job satisfaction is reviewed in this section.
Bess (1981) has examined recent theories of personal work
satisfaction available to the academic person at the college
or university and compared them with those of professionals
in other occupations. The following theories of job satis-
faction were examined: job facets theory, expectancy theory,
equity theory, need and need deficiency theory, and two-
factor theory.
38
The use of facet theory in studies of college faculty
employs questionnaires with long lists of job charac-
teristics. Expectancy theory is particularly useful in
separating the contingencies that affect effort—performance
and performance reward. While equity theory can be of
considerable value in understanding some of the sources of
faculty dissatisfaction with teaching, it does not reveal,
for example, the qualitative natures of satisfactions
received at varying levels of input. Whereas expectancy
theory predicts that workers will be able cognitively to
appraise their situations and adjustments, need theory
assumes that most workers will be driven by basic human
forces that may not be fully understood through
introspective analysis. Therefore, under this perspective,
primary responsibility for the improvement of satisfaction
would lie in formal authorities external to the individual.
When the literature on need, two-factor, or need deficiency
theory in the field of higher education was examined by
Bess, surprisingly little research was found.
Herzberg's theory of motivation is attractive to some
researchers in regard to job satisfaction. Openshaw (1980)
conducted a research effort concerning job satisfaction
determinants among faculty and administrators to test
Herzsberg's motivation-hygiene theory of job satisfaction in
a higher education setting and to determine whether there
39
was a significant difference in overall job satisfaction
according to selected demographic and situational variables.
Openshaw hypothesized that (1) motivation factors are
primarily related to feelings of job satisfaction rather
than to feelings of job dissatisfaction, (2) hygiene factors
are primarily related to feelings of job satisfaction, (3)
motivation factors are significantly greater indicators of
job satisfaction than are hygiene factors, and (4) there is
a significant difference in overall job satisfaction for all
of the demographic and situational variables included in the
study.
The sample included all academic administrators (n=200)
from the College of Allied Health Sciences, Arts and
Sciences, Business Administration, and Education at Georgia
State University, Atlanta, Georgia. The Job Descriptive
Index was used to measure overall job satisfaction and
satisfaction with specific aspects of the job. Results of
the study showed that respondents exhibited a high degree of
job satisfaction. Contrary to the Herzsberg's theory, both
motivation and hygiene factors were primarily related to
feelings of job satisfaction rather than to feelings of job
dissatisfaction, and hygiene factors were significantly
greater indicators of job satisfaction than were motivation
factors. Academic administrators had significantly higher
overall job satisfaction scores than did full-time teaching
40
faculty. The last finding is congruent with Benoit's
(1976/1977). It can be concluded that power is satisfying
among administrators.
On the basis of these findings, Openshaw concluded that
both motivation and hygiene factors contribute to
®&tisfaction and dissatisfaction in a higher education
setting. The duality of man's nature--i.e., the need to
avoid pain and displeasure and the need to grow psy-
chologically--must be accommodated in the work place.
Educational administrators must be cognizant of their
ability to increase performance and satisfaction on the job
by satisfying the intrinsic job needs of workers at all
levels and through restructuring the nature of work by
providing greater opportunities for self-actualization.
The next research finding that is somewhat surprising
is a similar study which was done by Ageel (1982/1983).
Even though Ageel's study was in his native country--Saudi
Arabia--and Openshaw's study was conducted in America, the
findings are quite similar.
The objective of Ageel's study was to examine the
overall job satisfaction of selected staff members at Umm
Al-Oura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, in order to
determine the factors which give satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction, and to examine the relationship of selected
demographic variables with job satisfaction. Questionnaires
41
were distributed among Saudi and expatriate faculty in the
College of Education and Law, as well as open ended
questions about what attracted respondents to the job in the
first place, under what conditions they would either stay or
leave, and what aspects of their employment provided
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In contrast to the
respondents of Herzberg, it was found in Ageel's study that
content factors were related primarily to job dis-
satisfaction, while context factors were related primarily
to job satisfaction. It was suggested that the sudden
expansion of higher education in a developing country might
lead to greater attention with context factors (i.e.,
material rewards and trappings of the jobs) to the detriment
of dealing with content factors, i.e., the intrinsic rewards
associated with a job well done.
Gall and Vogel (1981) reported a different aspect of
motivation which causes job satisfaction. Their research
report shows the attitudes of faculty members of the College
of Arts and Sciences at Northeastern Illinois University.
The survey method was adopted by the researchers. The 85
respondents excluded faculty in administrative positions. A
significant difference was found in faculty plans for
retirement: 47 percent wished to live in the city; 24
percent in the suburbs, and 29 percent in the country.
Fifty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they
42
would continue working full-time in their present position
if offered the opportunity as an alternative to retiring.
With respect to this decision, personal satisfaction was
cited as being the primary motivation for delaying
retirement. For part-time faculty, 62 percent indicated
that they would elect to continue working part-time in their
present position if offered the opportunity as an
alternative to retiring. Again, personal satisfaction was a
major concern for making this decision.
Demographic Variables and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction of faculty members which is related to
demographic and job variables such as sex, age, marital
status, academic degree, teaching experience, academic or
administrative rank will be investigated in this section.
The terms job satisfaction may deal with satisfaction in all
dimensions and/or each facet depending on the purpose of an
individual study.
Grahn et al. (1981) conducted a study of job
satisfaction in 1980. The study concerned employment
attitudes among faculty at the General College of the
University of Minnesota, an institution for nontraditional
post secondary education. The long form of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire was used, with a new demographic
questionnaire substituted. The survey sample consisted of
96 teaching, administrative, and student service faculty
43
members employed at least half-time. Results show three
work-related factors that strongly satisfy General College
faculty: moral values, social service, and activity. it is
suggested that these factors might be used in the future to
improve overall faculty satisfaction and in faculty
recruitment. The identified work-related areas of
dissatisfaction cluster around organization and management
functions, and include advancement, compensation, and
company organization and policies. Full professors were
relatively satisfied with advancement; men were more
satisfied than women with advancement and security; Ph.D.
faculty were more satisfied with security and creativity;
those with longest service were most satisfied with
security, social status, and working conditions; faculty
with salaries of $30,000 or over were most satisfied with
advancement, security, and compensation; and full-time
faculty, with moral values, security, and variety.
Instructors showed most satisfaction with authority, co-
workers, creativity, recognition, responsibility, social
status, supervision-human relations, and supervision-
technical relations. Female faculty were more satisfied
with achievement, activity, authority, and social service,
and less satisfied with advancement and security.
Willie an<^ Stecklein (1982) reported a similar study
comparing the results they found in 1956 to those in 1968.
44
Ths same questionnaire was used both times with similar
samples. Information about personal background; profes-
sional activities; job-related attitudes, satisfactions and
dissatisfactions; and career appraisal was gathered from a
25 percent random sample, stratified by rank, of full-time
faculty in Minnesota's accredited, nontheological colleges
and universities. The data suggest that the professoriate
has remained relatively unchanged during the two and one-
half decades covered by the three surveys. Its members are
likely to be male, married, and middle-aged. The results of
effort to increase the number of women have not substantial-
ly changed the ratio of men to women, although minor changes
have occurred. The educational level of those teaching in
Minnesota colleges had risen sharply during the years of the
study despite conditions that might have prevented such a
rise. Between 1956 and 1980, there was an 18 percentage
point increase in doctorate holders among the faculties in
the four-year institutions. Although eight out of 10
respondents in each of the surveys described themselves as
satisfied or very satisfied, larger percentages than
previously are now describing their attitude as satisfied
rather than very satisfied.
In 1980 and 1982 surveys to gauge the perceptions of
full-time, academic transfer faculty with respect to actual
and preferred program emphases, and to determine their level
45
of job satisfaction were conducted by Ramsey at Pensacola
Junior College, Florida (1982). Responses from 56 percent
of the instructors surveyed in 1980 (N=81) and 55 percent in
1982 (N=74) revealed that over 68 percent of the respondents
were male, almost all were over 30, and over 98 percent held
a master's or doctoral degree. In 1980, the greatest
differences between actual and preferred emphases were in
the areas of programs for the academically talented,
entrance requirements, and opportunities for faculty
research whereas in 1982 differences were apparent with
respect to study skills and habits and the gap between
current and preferred emphasis on faculty research had
increased. In both surveys, faculty expressed the highest
level of satisfaction with the kind of work they did, their
degree of job security, and amount of responsibility, and
the lowest degree of satisfaction with their salary,
institutional policies and practices, and opportunities for
advancement. In 1982, the strengths of PJC were seen as its
open admissions policy and program variety while ad-
ministrative communication was seen as an area needing
attention.
Job satisfaction of another full—and part—time faculty
has been investigated. Sorcinelli (1978) has examined
dental educators attitudes toward academic life through
structured, in-depth interviews with 122 full-and part-time
46
faculty at Indiana University School of Dentistry. Results
showed that the major reasons for choosing an academic
career were influence of a faculty member or dean, interest
in the subject matter, economics, and a means to keep
current in the field. The satisfactions of an academic
career included relationships with students, the act of
teaching, and interactions with colleagues. The major
dissatisfactions included effects of financial cutbacks;
lack of recognition and reward (non-salary); lack of time
for research, teaching and service responsibilities; and low
salary. Among the satisfactions with the Indiana University
School of Dentistry were academic challenge and freedom,
relationships with colleagues, the school's national
reputation, and relationships with students. Dissatis-
factions with the school involved the decline in the quality
of education offered, effects of financial cutbacks, low
salary, and administrative and departmental organizational
problems. More than three-fourths of the respondents had no
systematic method for assessing their teaching
effectiveness. Research was reported as the major criterion
for awarding tenure and promotion although two-thirds of the
respondents indicated their major interest and involvement
was in teaching activities.
A review of the literature of more than 200 studies on
tenure has been examined by Habecker (1981). After
47
addressing the tenure process, typology, history, the
involvement of the American Association of University
Professors, and current legal perspectives, various
alternatives to tenure were considered. It was concluded
that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that
alternatives to tenure have improved faculty morale,
productivity, institutional personnel flexibility, teaching,
job security motivation or have led to decreased litigation
or overall improved institutional effectiveness, however
defined. Additional findings from the literature include
where differences between tenured and nontenured teachers
have been found, tenured teachers have usually been rated as
more effective than nontenured teachers; it appears that
tenured teachers express higher levels of overall job
satisfaction than do nontenured teachers.
Additional research concerning job satisfaction of
faculty in higher education has been conducted by Berman
(1980). Research that attempts to understand the job
satisfaction of faculty in higher education has generally
focused on full-time teaching faculty. Part-time faculty
are responsible for a substantial portion of the total
instructional production of the nation's colleges and
universities, but to date have been largely unobserved. The
job satisfaction and role conflict of full-time and part-
time male and female faculty were investigated using the
48
entire teaching faculty at the University of Maryland
(College Park Campus) as the sample group. Respondents
completed the Job-Related Tension Index and a questionnaire
containing job satisfaction and role conflict items.
Results indicated that part-time faculty expressed greater
job satisfaction and less role conflict than full-time
faculty. Female faculty experienced greater job satisfac-
tion and greater role conflict than male part-time faculty
and the least satisfied group was female full-time faculty.
Studies of job satisfaction over the years have
involved workers in a variety of occupations—from pro-
duction activities in manufacturing plants to, more re-
cently, the service professions. Such studies have direct
implications for employers or funding agencies which use the
findings in attempts to minimize those aspects of the work
environment which produce stress, reduce job satisfaction,
and, in extreme cases, lead to various forms of withdrawal
behavior.
The existence of high levels of stress and low levels
of job satisfaction among educators has received con-
siderable attention in recent years. Many individuals in
academia today find themselves in an environment
characterized by, for example, declining relative pay
levels, changing perceptions of status, and increasing
demands for creative intellectual activity brought about by
49
more stringent application of up-or-out and publish-or-
perish policies. The concerns for creative activity among
educators inspired Pearson and Seiler (1983) to conduct
their study to examine job satisfaction among university
faculty in the United States of America, identifying those
elements of academic activities with which faculty are
satisfied and those with which they are dissatisfied.
Utilizing a nationwide sample of university professors
in the United States, this study explored job satisfaction
levels of academicians and the differences between perceived
satisfaction of faculty in professional schools and that of
faculty in other disciplines. The results were based upon
responses from 336 faculty representing 24 universities
selected on a stratified basis which included large, small,
public and private universities.
The 22 elements of an academic work environment which
were used in the study were selected through the use of the
expert-judge technique. Approximately fifteen experienced
faculty were involved in the identification of these
elements. A rotated varimax factor analysis with iterations
as contained in the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1975) was performed on the 22
elements, using the 336 responses, and the results support
the separation of work elements into six general dimensions:
(1) classroom-related; (2) research-related; (3) teaching-
50
related; (4) recognition- and reputation-related; (5)
support-related; and (6) compensation-related.
Teaching dimensions and research requirements were the
most satisfying elements of the academic work environment;
support and compensation aspects were the most dissatis-
fying. Faculty from professional schools reported high
levels of satisfaction for almost all of the 22 separate
environmental dimensions, and these faculty also reported
higher salaries and less stringent requirements for tenure
and promotion.
The demographic variables which explained the greatest
amount of variance in work satisfaction scores were tenure,
teaching load, sex, institution (public-private), and age.
Salary and academic rank, which a priori are considered to
be significant in an academician's satisfaction with work,
appeared to have a lesser impact.
Mellinger (1982/1983) attempted to investigate and
compare the differences and similarities of job satisfaction
of faculty and administrators at a struggling liberal arts
college. Enrollments in the institution declined from 680
m 1968 to 230 in 1981. The Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey
developed by Clark and Koester was used to collect data.
Additional questions were incorporated to determine
administrative job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. To
determine the correlation at the .05 level of significance,
51
a chi square and corrected chi square were employed. The
mean, standard deviation, and a t-score were calculated for
the satisfaction and dissatisfaction scales.
Mellinger's findings indicated that despite declining
enrollments, neither faculty nor administrators were highly
dissatisfied. However, the longer a person worked at the
college the more dissatisfaction was reported. Faculty
reported enjoying their teaching; however, administrators
reported dissatisfaction with their tasks and relationships.
Administrators reported a higher frequency of symptoms of
job stress than faculty. The results implied that improved
information flow, improvement in relationships and
reconstructing the rewards system would improve job
satisfaction. Both groups felt more recognition also would
improve job satisfaction.
^ study of job satisfaction among administrators
in higher education has been done by Sullivan (1983/1984).
Her study was conducted in the fall of 1982 to identify
selected demographic characteristics of associate and
assistant law school deans; to identify factors of work and
the work environment which affect job satisfaction of law
school associate and assistant deans; and to identify the
relationships between certain demographic and employment
characteristics of law school associate and assistant deans
and job satisfaction.
52
A questionnaire, including the short form of the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), was mailed to
the subjects comprising 396 associate and assistant deans in
the 172 United States law schools accredited by the American
Bar Association. The response totaled 277, or 70 percent.
Frequency distributions were tabulated and one-way analysis
of variance was computed.
The findings of the study show that the majority of
associate and assistant deans were white males, although the
number of women had increased in recent years. Associate
deans were slightly older than assistant deans. Associate
deans held significantly more tenure-track appointments and
reported substantially higher salaries than assistant deans.
Career focus was another difference; assistant deans
reported primary career focuses as administrators. Res-
pondents with a career focus as administrator expressed
higher job satisfaction than those without such a focus.
The number of associate and assistant deans who held law
degrees has declined in recent years. Respondents were very
satisfied with most aspects of their jobs, particularly with
the autonomy of their positions and competence of the law
school dean. The least satisfaction was reported for
opportunity for advancement. Respondents reported high
degrees of satisfaction with their overall life situation.
53
Sullivan concluded that there are substantial
differences between associate and assistant deans.
Assistant deans' primary career focus is as administrator
while associate deans' is as professor. Job satisfaction is
greater for persons with a career focus as an administrator.
A shift in hiring practices has occurred; and increasing
number of assistant law school deans do not have law
degrees. Associate and assistant law school deans are
satisfied with their jobs except for the lack of opportunity
for advancement. They are also highly satisfied with their
overall life situation.
Winkler (1982) is another person whose study utilized a
nationwide sample of university faculty members. The
purpose of his study was to measure the perceptions of job
satisfaction among faculty. Differences in faculty job
satisfaction relative to rank, age, tenure, department
affiliation, academic discipline (using the Biglan Model),
and sex were measured. Items contributing the most and
least to faculty job satisfaction were identified.
A random sample of 600 faculty from twenty-two
universities was surveyed by Winkler using the Job
Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire Short Form (MSQ) to measure job satisfaction.
Three hundred thirty-six usable questionnaires were analyzed
to test eleven null hypotheses related to rank, age,
54
department affiliation, sex, tenure status, and Biglan Model
academic task areas. Statistics employed included t-test,
oneway and threeway, fixed factor analysis of variance.
Separate analyses were used for data measured by the JDI and
MSQ.
Three of the eleven null hypotheses were rejected at
the .05 level. Statistically significant differences in job
satisfaction were found between faculty in the following
areas: in the departments of Agriculture and Mechanical
Engineering using MSQ data; by sex using MSQ data; and
hard/soft interaction with nonfile/life Biglan Model
academic areas using either JDI or MSQ data. Faculty
identified twenty-two items as contributing the most to
their job satisfaction. The most frequently mentioned items
included autonomy, academic freedom, independence, and
teaching and/or advising excellent students. Faculty
identified fifty-five items as contributing the most to
their job dissatisfaction. The most frequent items in this
category were pay, poor administration and leadership, lack
of support (equipment, budget, secretarial, public),
university structure and reward system, and narrow,
dogmatic, pompus colleagues.
Winkler concluded that differences in faculty job
satisfaction did exist with pay identified as a primary
dissatisfaction. No statistical significance was found
55
comparing rank, age, tenure, academic discipline areas
except for hard/soft by nonlife/life interaction. Females
expressed less job satisfaction than males. Professors in
agriculture expressed the highest mean job satisfaction of
all respondents.
Another piece of research in this area that is worth
noting is a study done by Vatthaisong (1982/1983). The
researcher investigated and analyzed job satisfaction among
faculty members of Thai teacher training institutions. His
study employed the Faculty Job Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction
Scale consisting of a two-part questionnaire: (a) two items
of demographic classifications, and (b) 67 items divided
into ten factors for measuring job satisfaction and one
single item dealing with overall satisfaction. The
instrument gathered responses on a six-point scale. His
findings include the following. (1) Sources of satisfaction
for faculty in rank order of importance were interpersonal
relations, the work itself, achievement, recognition,
responsibility, growth, working conditions, supervision, and
administrative policies. The source of dissatisfaction was
salary. (2) Faculty with over ten years teaching experience
were more satisfied with their achievement and working
conditions than faculty with under ten years experience.
(3) Faculty with over ten years teaching experience revealed
more overall satisfaction than faculty with under ten years
56
experience. (4) No difference existed in satisfaction
between males and females.
A piece of research conducted at an institution of
higher learning in Bangkok, Thailand, should also be
mentioned here. Jariyavidyanont (1978/1979) investigated
and analyzed job satisfaction of faculty members in the
National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)
located in Bangkok.
The subjects involved were 120 full-time faculty
members who had been working at NIDA at least six months
before November 1, 1977. The subjects included not only the
faculty members who were in residence at the time of the
study but also those who were studying or training abroad at
the time. The instrument elicited respondents' attitudes
toward overall job satisfaction as well as specific aspects
of job satisfaction. The Likert scale system consisting of
a five category continuum of agreement-disagreement was
used. A response of 86.7 percent was obtained.
A one-way analysis of variance was employed to test for
significance of any differences among faculty members* job
satisfaction scores and their sex, age, marital status,
educational backgrounds, position, years of working at NIDA,
and distance traveled to work.
The major findings and conclusions were as follows.
Faculty members who were employed by NIDA were moderately
57
satisfied with their jobs and most of them perceived their
job as meaningful and interesting. When considering each
specific aspect of job satisfaction, the faculty members
were most satisfied with the status of their professions.
They were least satisfied with salary and welfare aspects as
related to job satisfaction. The only demographic variable
which produced a significant difference was the degree held
by faculty members. Thus, it was concluded that there was
an effect on job satisfaction scores that could be attri-
buted to the level of education of the faculty members.
Another study has been done by Saidian (1980/1981).
Saidian employed the MSQ (short form) to measure job
satisfaction among teachers in vocational schools in
Esfahan, Iran. The 20 item Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) was translated and distributed to a
random sample of 200 of the 8,807 vocational teachers who
were either two-year degree or four-year degree teachers. A
total of 158 respondents or 79 percent of the sample
participated in Saidian's study.
The chi-square test was used to analyze the data of
this study. It was found that teachers derived the greatest
amount of satisfaction from their job when they had a
feeling of accomplishment. This observation verified the
fact that teachers select teaching and realize a great deal
of satisfaction from their job.
58
However, the result of this study supported the fact
that teachers were most dissatisfied with their supervisors
and their competence as administrative decision-makers. The
fact that administrators give very little positive feedback
to teachers for doing good work was cited by these teachers
as a major criticism. With respect to their supervisors,
teachers expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction about the
manner in which administrators handled their administrative
roles.
Sex Variable and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction of male and female faculty has been
studied by many researchers to determine whether there are
differences in job satisfaction between sexes. Hill (1983)
studied the job satisfaction of 752 male and 195 female
faculty in 16 Pennsylvania colleges and universities. Job
satisfaction was measured by a 45-item inventory, and factor
analysis of the inventory revealed the following components
of job satisfaction: (1) teaching, (2) recognition and
support, (3) convenience, (4) economic, (5) administrative,
and (6) associational. Further analysis indicated that the
first three facets represented an intrinsic dimension and
the last three represented an extrinsic dimension. A step-
wise regression analysis was run for each sex on the two
dimensions of job satisfaction to assess the predictive
strength of various background items and to determine
59
whether the two sexes differ with respect to the kinds of
influences that affect their job satisfaction. Although
there were indications that differences in sex may affect
the kinds of expectations that a person has about work in
academia, little difference in job satisfaction was found
between the sexes. Dissatisfaction with work was greater
among younger faculty, those in the lower academic ranks,
and those who teach in the humanities and social and
behavioral sciences.
Hill (1982) conducted an even earlier study on the
subject. His topic was concerned with the connection
between faculty sex composition and job satisfaction among
women academics in selected institutions of higher education
in Pennsylvania. Responses to a mailed questionnaire were
received from 1,089 respondents, including 214 women.
Biographical data and demographic information were
collected, and job satisfaction was measured by a 45-item,
Likert-type inventory that reflected dimensions of the work
environment of higher education (economic, teaching,
administrative, associational, recognition-support, and
convenience facets). Women who taught in institutions with
relatively high proportions of women on the faculty tended
to be significantly more satisfied than those who taught in
highly male-dominated institution on some, but not all
dimensions of job satisfaction. Of the six dimensions of
60
job satisfaction, those reflecting the economic,
administrative, and convenience dimensions were most
affected by sex composition. The positive effects of
increased proportions of women faculty are likely to be more
pronounced among humanities, social and behavioral science,
social service, and mathematics and physical science
faculty; and among these groups the economic dimension is
often the most significantly affected dimension of job
satisfaction.
A piece of research that should be mentioned here is
the research done by Benoit (1976/1977). Her study and
Hill s (1982 & 1983) were alike, because the studies dealt
with only faculty women in higher education. The
instrumentation was different, however. Benoit used the
long-form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).
Analysis of variance and mean were used to analyze the data.
The major purpose of Benoit's study was to analyze and
to quantify environmental work elements which affect job
satisfaction of faculty women in state universities of
Louisiana. Additional purposes were to determine degree of
job satisfaction among faculty women in higher education, to
learn whether job satisfaction of these women was affected
by independent variables, to profile respondents and to
investigate their career patterns.
61
The mean of the respondents' scores on the general
satisfaction portion of the MSQ was examined to determine
degree of satisfaction of faculty women in the state
universities of Louisiana. The mean score for these women
was 73.14, indicating to some degree dissatisfaction.
Compared with the mean score of general satisfaction for
five other groups—teachers, principals, distributive
education coordinators, secretaries and nurses—who have
responded to the same questionnaire, faculty women were less
satisfied than any other group.
Several conclusions were derived from the data of this
study: (1) Women are becoming increasingly involved in
society, and this involvement may account for their dis-
satisfaction; and (2) Administrators were more satisfied
than non-administrators. Perhaps the administrator feels
that she is more the "mistress of her own fate," and finds
that "power" is satisfying.
Concerns regarding tenure-line, nontenured faculty were
studied by Fuchs and Lovana-Kerr (1981) in 1979 at Indiana
University. Study objectives were to identify obstacles to
tenure level performance, conditions that might influence
faculty to seek, positions elsewhere, demographic data,
appointment data, and information about the following:
degrees of satisfaction with work, perceived attitudes of
colleagues toward work, amount and type of feedback and
62
evaluation received, factors deemed important in acquiring
tenure, attitudes toward the department, and factors judged
important to one's quality of life. Responses revealed that
significantly more women were hired as lecturers than men,
while significantly more men were initially hired as
assistant professors. However in 1979, many women who had
been hired as lecturers had been promoted to the rank of
assistant professor and there was no significant difference
in the current rank of men and women. The major differences
between male and female nontenured faculty occurred in their
perceptions of their professional lives: women were
significantly less satisfied with their quantity of work
than were men, but significantly more satisfied with their
service and other professional activities. Men were
significantly more confident than women of receiving tenure.
Both women and men felt that members of the same or opposite
sex viewed them primarily as co-workers or friends. Social
life and cultural environment were not as important to
either men or women as the professional aspects of their
lives.
In 1982, Lovana-Kerr and Fuchs conducted a follow-up
study to check the results they found in 1979. The follow-
up study included faculty hired since 1975 who were
previously studied in 1979, along with faculty hired since
1979. In March, 1981, questionnaires were mailed to 116
63
women and 189 male faculty, and the response rate was 59
percent for women and 55 percent for men. Of this group, 13
male faculty and 14 female faculty had been tenured since
the 1979 study. The major differences between male and
female nontenured faculty members in both studies pertaining
to their perceptions of their professional lives were their
research; feedback received on their work; their degree of
confidence in acquiring tenure; and their relationships
within their departments. Men were more satisfied than
women with the quantity of their research and received their
colleagues' evaluations on the quantity and quality of their
research and publications as excellent or good. Women
appeared to be more satisfied than men with their teaching
performance, service, and professional activities. More
women than men also perceived colleague evaluations to be
good or excellent on their teaching.
Balazadeh (1981/1982) investigated motivation to work
and job satisfaction between male and female faculty members
at a university. The sample for this study was selected
from faculty members from different colleges at a Midwestern
Regional University in Kansas. The Educational Work
Component Study (EWCS) questionnaire and the job Descriptive
Index (JDI) questionnaire were employed to investigate the
motivation to work and the degree of job satisfaction among
male and female faculty members respectively. The
64
statistics used in this study were the T-test, the Kendall
Tau b nonparametric measurement, and the Multiple Regression
Analysis.
The findings of this study showed that the longer the
faculty members were in their positions, the lower were
their job satisfaction and motivation. Still, the research
contributed some other findings. The female faculty members
showed a greater degree of job satisfaction than male
faculty members. Being in a prestigious position made the
faculty members satisfied and more highly motivated. Sex
made no significant contribution to faculty members'
satisfaction and motivation when the other variables of
demographic information were held constant.
Other Variables Related to Job Satisfaction
Independent variables other than those of sex and
general demographic variables can be matched with job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction, then, is a dependent
variable that can be affected by any number of specific
independent variables. Independent variables may, for
example, include the following: faculty in unionized and
nonunionized institutions, management by objectives (MBO),
student evaluation, decision-making participation, and so
forth. Whether faculty members will be or will not be
satisfied with their job depends on those variables as the
following research has demonstrated.
65
A study was conducted by Evans, Johnson, and Ramsey
(1983) to determine if job satisfaction of athletic coaches
is influenced by the fact that their sports were revenue or
nonrevenue producing. A revenue sport was identified as one
being able to sustain itself financially within the
university (baseball, football, basketball). Nonrevenue
sports were identified as tennis, swimming, golf, and field
and track. Head coaches from 95 colleges responded to a
personal data sheet and a 50-item job satisfaction
questionnaire. Findings revealed the following: (1)
Coaches of nonrevenue sports had higher work demand
satisfaction; (2) Coaches of revenue sports achieved higher
mean scores on job satisfaction; (3) Coaches of revenue
sports were more satisfied with the administration/organi-
zational phase of their jobs; (4) Most of the coaches were
dissatisfied with their salaries; (5) Both groups were
fairly satisfied with the racial balance in their working
environments and organizational aspects of their jobs; and
(6) The coaches overall were satisfied with their jobs.
Research pertinent to collective bargaining in higher
education has investigated many of the implications and
consequences of unionization for college faculty, but it has
rarely examined the connection between collective bargaining
and job satisfaction. Hill (1982), then, has done research
that explores the extent to which collective bargaining
66
influences job satisfaction among college faculty by
comparing levels of facet-specific job satisfaction of
faculty in traditional and unionized institutions. In order
to examine his hypotheses empirically, questionnaires were
sent to 2,400 faculty members at twenty institutions of
higher education in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For
purposes of his study, the various institutions were divided
into two groups: unionized and nonunionized systems. Usable
returns were received from 1,089 respondents (a response
rate of 45.5 %).
Hill measured job satisfaction by a 45-item, Likert
type inventory that reflected various dimensions of the work
environment of academia. The dimensions included the
economic, teaching, administrative, associational,
recognition-support, and convenience facets of job
satisfaction. Results of t-tests of means of job
satisfaction for the two faculty groups indicate that
unionized faculty are significantly more satisfied on four
of the six facet-specific dimensions than are nonunionized
faculty. These dimensions are economic, administrative,
associational, and convenience facets of job satisfaction.
The findings also indicate that differences in job
satisfaction between union and nonunion faculty are greatest
for most groups in the economic and administrative spheres.
The implication of this is that collective bargaining
67
enhances job satisfaction for most academics in a number of
facet-specific dimensions of the work situation.
To analyze relationships that may exist between
community college administrators' perceptions of collective
bargaining and both their management style and job
satisfaction, Griffin (1982/1983), conducted a study of a
total of 83 Deans, Associate Deans, Director IVs, Provosts
and Assistant Provosts and found that administrators who
indicated high job satisfaction have both positive and
negative attitudes about collective bargaining depending on
the issue but their attitudes are more often positive than
negative.
Terpstra, Olson, and Lockeman (1982) investigated the
impact of an MBO application in a university setting. It
was hypothesized that faculty performance levels would be
positively affected while satisfaction levels would not be
influenced. A total of 23 faculty from the College of
Business and Economics at the University of Idaho completed
a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of performance
and satisfaction both prior to and after the MBO
application. Additionally, data were gathered through
archival, nonobtrusive methods (performance records) and
interviews with department heads. The results suggest that
performance increased as a result of the MBO application
while satisfaction generally declined. The findings from
68
this study diverge from earlier studies conducted within
business and industry in which the implementation of MBO had
little or no effect on satisfaction (French, Kay, and Meyer,
1966; Ivancevich, 1974; Steers, 1975; Raia, 1966).
In speculating as to why an MBO approach might be
expected to have different results in an educational
setting, it may be, as Umstot, Bell, and Mitchell (1976)
suggested, that individuals who have worked for some time
without specific goals may feel constrained by the addition
of goals. Scholars and academicians have traditionally
placed much value on individual autonomy, behavioral
flexibility, and academic freedom. MBO may have been seen
as threatening these afore-mentioned job dimensions and
values. Thus, the introduction of MBO in higher education
may present some rather unique problems.
In conclusion, results of the study would seem to have
important implications for similar institutions of higher
education considering the application of MBO. If MBO leads
to long-term dissatisfaction among faculty, administrators
must weigh carefully the trade-offs associated with dissa-
tisfaction on the one hand and increases in performance on
the other. The cost of recruiting and faculty replacement
efforts may not be worth the benefits of increased research
and service activities. If, however, the observed decline
in satisfaction is only a temporary phenomenon, the initial
costs may be well worth the effort.
69
Turnover rate in relation to less job satisfaction
among faculty in higher education is an important issue to
be examined. It has been apparent to many administrators
who are responsible for administering, supervising, and
funding post-secondary vocational-technical education that
excessive turnover of faculty tends to retard the quali-
tative development of programs. Turnover of faculty also
places additional demands on the administrator's time and
the institution's resources. Hansen and Kramer (1978)
focussed their study on post-secondary vocational-technical
teachers that had high turnover rates among them. The
purpose of their study was to identify the reasons for the
apparently high turnover rate among teachers in Iowa's 15
post-secondary area schools. Two techniques were used in an
attempt to identify the reasons for the turnover rate. One
technique consisted of comparing background information via
Iowa Professional School Employees Data Sheets for all
former and current teachers for the period 1971 through
1975. The second technique consisted of asking former
instructors, by use of a mailed questionnaire, to relate
their reasons for leaving the vocational-technical teaching
program.
The analysis of the data sheets failed to provide any
conclusive insight into the reason for the turnover rate.
Although the profile was of limited value, some tendencies
70
were observed. Analysis of the data from the survey of
current and former teachers revealed that (a) former
teachers showed greater dissatisfaction with preservice
workshops than did current teachers; (b) former teachers
tended to be less satisfied with external working conditions
than did current teachers; (c) both current and former
teachers found relationships with students to be the most
rewarding aspects of their teaching experience; (d) both
current and former teachers found interaction with
administrators and supervisors to be the least rewarding
aspect of their teaching experience. Finally, former
teachers reported they left the program primarily because of
problems they experienced with administrators and/or
supervisors, and school policies. Current teachers were
more likely to cite contract and salary problems as possible
reasons for leaving the program. This study also concluded
that one-fourth of the turnover rate can be attributed to
nonvoluntary reasons (illness, retirement), one-third to
personnel problems between teachers and superiors and/or
school policies, and one-fourth to problems with teachers'
contracts, salaries, and/or fringe benefits.
Over the past decade there has been a dramatic upsurge
in the collection and use of student evaluation of in-
struction in higher education. One of the principal ways
this- information is being used is in connection with
71
personnel decisions about faculty members. Along with its
increased use has been an increasing number of research
articles and commentary on all aspects of evaluation of
instruction by students. Ryan, Anderson, and Birchler
(1980) surveyed faculty members concerning their
observations and opinions about the effects of student
evaluation of instruction in a university where this
practice had been a mandatory requirement for personnel
evaluation purposes for several years. The study was
carried out at the authors' institution—University of
Wisconsin-La Crosse, which is part of the university system.
The questionnaire items were designed to elicit faculty
judgments about the effects that the gathering and use of
SEI (student evaluation of instruction) information had had
on their own and their colleagues' morale and job attitudes
and on changes in their instructional practices. Other
items focused on beliefs about the purposes for which SEI
information should be used and some of the procedures or
conditions under which it had been and should be gathered.
The questionnaire was distributed to all 300 academic
department faculty members. Returns sufficiently complete
for inclusion in the analysis were obtained from 193, or 63
percent, of the recipients. The respondents reported a
definite reduction in morale and job satisfaction, change in
various institutional practices--mainly with judgments about
the validity of the ratings students provide.
72
Finally, upon examining whether some demographic
characteristics affect the level of participation in the
decision-making process and the degrees of job satisfaction
of faculty, Klapachan (1983) found that participation in the
decision-making process was not a sole factor in influencing
the satisfaction of faculty members. Therefore, it was
recommended that university administrators should be more
aware of this fact and search for other means to provide job
satisfaction for faculty.
Summary
Job satisfaction among faculty members in higher
education is attractive to many researchers in business and
educational settings. The research that has been done in
this area was categorized by this writer into six topics:
(1) Definition of Job Satisfaction; (2) Measures of Job
Satisfaction; (3) Research Related to Theories of Motivation
and Job Satisfaction; (4) General Demographic Variables and
Job Satisfaction (5) Sex and Job Satisfaction; (6) Others
Variables Related to Job Satisfaction.
In the part of literature on faculty's job satisfaction
related to general demographic variables, many pieces of
research show significant findings. Ramsey's finding (1982)
shows that faculty expressed the highest level of satis-
faction with the kind of work they did, their degree of job
security and amount of responsibility, and the lowest degree
73
of satisfaction with their salaries, institutional policies
and practices, and opportunities for advancement.
Habecker s finding (1981) shows that tenured teachers
expressed higher levels of job satisfaction than did
nontenured teachers. Berman (1980) found that part-time
faculty expressed greater job satisfaction and less role
conflict than full-time faculty. According to Pearson and
Seiler (1983), faculty from professional schools reported
higher levels of satisfaction than the levels reported by
faculty in other disciplines. Saidian's (1980/1981) finding
shows that teachers were most dissatisfied with their
supervisors for the reason that their supervisors gave very
little positive feed back to them. However, most research
shows that faculty are most dissatisfied with salary
(Ramsey, 1982; Sorcinelli, 1978; Pearson and Seiler, 1983;
Vatthaisong, 1982/1983; Jariyavidyanont, 1978/1979; Winkler,
1982) .
Hill (1983) found that little difference existed in job
satisfaction in the scores of men and women; dissatisfaction
was greatest among younger faculty and those in the lower
academic ranks. Hill (1982), also, found that women who
taught in institutions with relatively high proportions of
women on the faculty tended to be significantly more
satisfied than male faculty with their teaching performance,
service, and professional activities while men were more
74
satisfied than women with the quantity of their research.
Balazadeh's study shows that the female faculty showed a
greater degree of job satisfaction than male faculty.
Benoit (1976/1977) found that faculty women are becoming
increasingly involved in society, and this involvement may
account for their job dissatisfaction.
Evans et al. (1983) found that coaches of revenue
sports were more satisfied than coaches of nonrevenue sports
with the recognition they received. Hill (1982) found that
collective bargaining enhances job satisfaction for most
academics in a number of facet-specific dimensions of the
work situation. Griffin (1982/1983), also, found that
administrators who indicated high job satisfaction have both
positive and negative attitudes about collective bargaining
depending on the issue, but their attitudes are more often
positive than negative. The finding discovered by Terpstra
et al. from the College of Business and Economics at the
University of Idaho shows that the faculty performance level
increased as the result of the MBO application, while
satisfaction generally declined. According to turnover rate
in relation to less job satisfaction, Hansen and Kramer
(1978) found that former teachers left the program because
of problems they experienced with administrators and/or
supervisors, and school policies. Current teachers were
likely to cite contract and salary problems as possible
75
reasons for leaving the program. Ryan et al. (1980) found
in a study of student evaluation of instruction a definite
reduction in morale and job satisfaction, change in various
institutional practices--mainly reduced course work demands
on students.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ageel, H.A. (1983). Job satisfaction of staff members of Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2836A.
Balazadeh, G. (1982). A comparative study of motivation to work and job satisfaction between male and female faculty members at midwestern regional university (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4313A.
Benoit, S.S. (1977). Job satisfaction among faculty women m higher education in the state universities of Louisiana (Doctoral dissertation, The Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International. 37, 6969A. ~
Berman, M.R. (1980). Variables associated with role conflict between career and family. Atlanta, GA: American Personnel and Guidance Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 192 188)
Bess, J.L. (1981). Intrinsic satisfactions from academic versus other professional work: A comparative analysis. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher ^ c a t i o n . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XV\ ~
Dunn, J.D., & Stephens, E.C. (1972). Management of personnel: Manpower management and organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. ~~
Evans, V., Johnson, D., & Ramsey, J.p. (1983). Differences — — j o b satisfaction of athletic coaches in revenue and non-revenue sports.Minneapolis, MN: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 357)
French, J.R.P., Kay, E., & Meyer, H.H. (1966). Participation and the appraisal system. Human Relations, 19, 3-19.
76
77
Fuchs, R.G., & Lovano-Kerr, J. (1981). Professional development and quality of life: A comparative study of male/female non-tenured faculty"! Los Angeles, C A : — American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 202 416)
Gall/ L.A., & Voge, F.X. (1981). Attitudes of university faculty toward aging and retirement. Chicago, Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 208 780)
Grahn, J. et al. (1981). General college job satisfaction survey, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 716)
Griffin, M.E. (1983). Relationships between perceptions of collective bargaining, management style, and job satisfaction of mid-level administrators in Minnesota's community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982). Dissertation Abstract International, 43, 3470a! ~~
Habecker, E.B. (1981). A systematic approach to the study of benefits and detriments of tenure in American higher education: An analysis of the evidence. Huntington, IN: Huntington College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 212 208)
Hansen, G.L., & Kramer, R.E. (1978). Iowa postsecondary vocational-technical teacher retention study. Community Junior College Research Quarterly, 2, 2 5 5 "~*258 •
Hill, M.D. (1982). Faculty sex composition and job satisfaction among academic women. New York, NY: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 215 632)
Hill, M.D. (1982). Variations in job satisfaction among higher education faculty in unionized and nonunionized institutions in Pennsylvania. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public SectorTll, 165-180.
Hill, M.D. (1983). Some factors affecting the job satisfaction of academic women. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 297)
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
78
Ivancevich, J.M. (1974). Changes in performance in a management by objectives program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 563-574.
Jariyavidyanont, S. (1979). Job satisfaction of Nida faculty members (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5353A. "
Klapachan, P. (1983). A study of the relationships between participation in the decision making process and job satisfaction among the faculty of a midwestern regional state university (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts Internaf-.innal 44, 1000A. ~ '
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 309-336. — — '
Lovano-Kerr, J., & Fuchs, R.G. (1982). Retention revisited: follow-up study of female/male non-tenured faculty
perceptions on retention, professional development and quality—of life* New York, NY: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 824)
Mellinger, G.P. (1983). An investigation of academic job satisfaction/dissatisfaction in a small struggling liberal arts college (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982) Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 94IaT ~
Nie, N.^Bent, D.H., &Hull, C.H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York* McGraw-Hill.
Openshaw, H. (1980). Job satisfaction determinants among faculty and administrators: An application of Herzberg's motivation hygiene model in higher education ( octoral dissertation, Georgia State University, I 9 8 0)- Dissertation Abstracts International. 41,' 247 OA• ~
Pearson, D.A., & Seiler, R.E. (1983). Environmental satisfiers in academe. Higher Education, 12, 35-47.
Raia, A.P. (1966). A second look at management goals and controls. California Management Review, 8 (4), 49-58.
79
Ramsey, J.K. (1982). Faculty perceptions of institutional quality and vitality. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 084)
Ryan, J.J., Anderson, J.A., & Birchler, A.B. (1980). Student evaluation: The faculty responds. Research in Higher Education, 12, 317-333.
Saidian, M. (1981). A study of job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire as applied to selected male and female vocational and technical teachers of Esfahan, Iran (Doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4378A.
Smith, P.C. (1974). The development of a method of measuring satisfaction: The Cornell studies. In E.A. Fleishman, & A.R. Bass (Eds.), Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology (pp. 272-289T Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press.
Sorcinelli, M.D. (1978). Faculty attitudes at Tntfiana University School of Dentistry. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Dentistry. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 282)
Steers, R.M. (1975). Task goal attributes, achievement, and supervisory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 392-403.
Sullivan, S.M. (1984). Job satisfaction of associate and assistant deans in accredited United States law schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-
1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4 4 r 2* 9 9 5A *
Terpstra, D.E., Olson, P.D., & Lockeman, B. (1982). The effects of MBO on levels of performance and satisfaction among university faculty. Group and Organization Studies. 7. 353-366.
Umstot, D.D., Bell, C.H., & Mitchell, T.R. (1976). Effects of job enrichment and productivity: Implications for 379-39419n J o u r n a l o f Applied Psychology, 61 (4),
Vatthaisong, A. (1983). A study of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in teacher training institutions in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of
80
Vanderbilt University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 468A.
W e i S S ; n ^ ; ' D ^ W i S ' 1
R ; V " En(31^nd' G - W " & Lofquist, L.H. \1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXII. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Willie, R., & Stecklein, J.E. (1982). A three decade comparison of college faculty characteristics, satisfactions, activities, and attitudes. Research in Higher Education, 16 (1), 81-83.
Winkler, L.D. (1982). Job satisfaction of university faculty in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 696A.
Wood, O.R. (1974). An analysis of faculty motivation to work an the North Carolina community college system (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Ralexgh, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 90IA! —
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents research procedures employed in
this study. It contains data collection procedures and
sample, instrumentation, and analysis and treatment of data
respectively.
Data Collection Procedure and Sample
Faculty members at the following six colleges in non-
metropolitan areas of central Thailand were included in this
study: Nakhon Pathom Teachers College, Kanchana Buri
Teachers College, Nakhon Sawan Teachers College, Ayuthaya
Teachers College, Chachoengsao Teachers College, and Chantha
Buri Teachers College.
Each of the six teachers colleges has departments or
divisions affiliated with one of three faculties: the
faculty of education, the faculty of science, and the
faculty of humanities and social sciences (Planning
Division, Ministry of Education, 1984). The Division of
Planning in the Department of Education was asked to provide
the most recent roster for each of the teachers colleges
included in the study. In addition to faculty members'
names, the information furnished by the Division of Planning
included administrative and/or academic rank, faculty
affiliation, and degree held for each person.
81
82
Fox each of the six colleges included in the study,
forty-eight faculty members were chosen for a total sample
size of 288. Twenty—four faculty members who were both
administrators and instructors at the same time were
selected from among divisional chairpersons; deans of the
faculties of education, sciences, and humanities and social
sciences; and vice-presidents. This number reflects a
decision to include as many teachers/administrators as the
average number of divisions for the six colleges. (See
Table I). The remaining twenty-four were selected as
follows from among those whose only duty was instructional:
eight faculty members were chosen from each of the faculty
TABLE I
NAME OF EACH COLLEGE AND NUMBER OF DIVISIONS
Teachers Colleges Number of Divisions
Nakhon Pathom 26
Karnchana Buri 26
Chachoengsao 26
Chantha Buri 25
Nakhon Sawan 28
Ayuthaya 27
Total 158 Mean 26.3
83
affiliations; of these eight, four were randomly selected
from faculty holding bachelor's degrees and four were
randomly selected from faculty holding master's degrees.
Table II displays the total number of faculty members in the
six colleges, the size of sample selected, and the number
and percentage of responses which were returned.
TABLE II
TOTAL FACULTY MEMBERS, SAMPLE SIZE, AND FREQUENCY/PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES
FROM SIX NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES IN CENTRAL THAILAND
Name of Each Teachers College
Total Faculty % Sample
Respon-dents
% of returns
Nakhon Pathom 199 22 .46 48 42 87.50
Karnchana Buri 94 10 .61 48 48 100.00
Chachoengs ao 139 15 .69 48 40 83.33
Chantha Buri 107 12 .08 48 43 89.58
Nakhon Sawan 155 17 .49 48 43 89.58
Ayuthaya 192 21 .67 48 37 77.08
Total 886 100, .00 288 253 87.85
The sample of 288 faculty members was randomly selected
from a total 886 faculty members at six non-metropolitan
teachers colleges. The sample selected is equivalent to
32.5 percent of the total faculty. A research assistant.
84
Smarn Loyfa*, mailed a total of two hundred and eighty-eight
questionnaires along with a letter composed by the
researcher, followed-up, and collected the returned
questionnaires from the middle of March to the middle of
May, 1985. When the collection of the questionnaires was
completed, the research assistant mailed them to the
researcher at NTSU (North Texas State University). In
total, 253 questionnaires were returned; thus 87.85 percent
of the sample participated in this study.
The faculty members were classified by sex, age, degree
levels, years of teaching experience, faculty affiliations,
and work positions as shown in Table III. (See Table III).
Table III also shows frequencies and percentages of faculty
members for each subgroup on the basis of seven demographic
variables. Analysis of the data reveals the following
characteristics of the respondents. (1) The number of male
faculty members (57.7%) was larger than that of morale
faculty members (42.3%). Most faculty members (57.3%) were
between 36 to 45 years of age. Only 2 percent or 5
respondents were 25 years of age or younger. A fraction
over fifty-eight percent of the respondents held a master's
degree or higher while 41.9 percent held a bachelor's
* A researcher's former colleague at Sakon Nakhon Teachers Tha^?9eii ^ h o. t a ufht at Khon Kaen University in northeast Thailand during the period when the study was beina conducted. y
85
TABLE III
PERCENTAGE OF DEMOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF FACULTY MEMBERS AT SIX NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES
IN CENTRAL THAILAND
Classification Numbsr
Sex:
Age:
Male 1 4 6 5 7 - 7
Female 107 42.3
Up to 25 5 2.0 26 to 35 79 4 3 6 t o 45 I45 5 7; 3
46 or more 31 12.3
Degree Levels: Bachelor 1 06 41,9 Master or higher 147 58.1
Years of teaching experience: 10 or less 70 27.7 More than 10 183 12.Z
Salary levels:
n3A 16 6.3 Cf 43 17.0 0 5 194 76.7
Faculty affiliations: Education 75 29 6 Humanities
and Social Sciences 95 37.9 Sciences 8 2 32.4
Work positions: Instructor 102 40 3 Administrator 151 59'7
86
degree. The number of faculty members with more than ten
years of teaching experience was larger (72.3%) than those
of ten years or less (27.7%). According to salary levels
classified by ranks, 76.7 percent of the respondents were at
classification 5 while 17 percent and 6.3 percent of them
were at classification 4 amd classification 3 respectively.
Among the respondents, 37.9 percent were from the faculty of
humanities and social sciences, 32.4 percent from the
faculty of sciences and 29.6 percent from the faculty of
education. Just a fraction more than forty percent of the
respondents had major responsibilities in teaching while
59.7 percent of them were responsible for both teaching and
administration.
Instrumentation
Herzberg's two-factor theory has served as the basis
for studies of job satisfaction by Sergiovanni (1966),
McGreal (1968/1969), Wickstrom (1971), Wood (1976),
Seegmiller (1977), and Vatthaisong (1982/1983). Wood
(1973/1974) developed the Faculty Job Satisfaction/ Dis-
satisfaction Scale based on Herzberg*s two-factor theory.
This instrument, which was used in the present study, has
been used by Wood (1973/1974) and Vatthaisong (1982/1983).
Wood s instrument is composed of 67 items representing the
motivation-hygiene dimensions (achievement, growth,
interpersonal relations, policy and administration,
87
recognition, responsibility, salary, supervision, the work
itself, and working conditions). There is also a single
item which is designed to provide an overall job
satisfaction. Response choices for the Wood's scale are
given a weight according to the following manner: 1-very
dissatisfied; 2-moderately dissatisfied; 3-slightly
dissatisfied; 4-slightly satisfied; 5-moderately satisfied;
6-very satisfied. A typical item appears as illustrated in
the following example:
The method used to determine your salary:
1 2 3 4 5 6
In addition to the job satisfaction questions, seven
items for demographic information were included at the
beginning of the questionnaire. They include items on sex,
age, degree levels, salary .levels, years of teaching
experience at college level, faculty affiliations, and work
positions.
The instrument was pretested by 52 full-time
instructors at a North Carolina technical institute (Wood,
1973). Following the pretest, the 10 Motivation-Hygiene
subscales based on Herzberg's theory were factor analyzed.
All items relating to job satisfaction were given an overall
factor analysis. A rotated factor matrix loading of 0.5 was
used as a guide to eliminates some items and move others to a
Motivation-Hygiene dimension which produced a higher factor
88
loading. The pretest reliability coefficients for internal
consistency were calculated from the factor analyses by the
formula developed by Charles H. Proctor (Wood, 1973). The
reliability coefficients for internal consistency on the
pretest were as follows: achievement, 0.81; growth, 0.86;
interpersonal relations, 0.93; policy and administration,
0.95; recognition, 0.85; responsibility, 0.88; salary, 0.92;
supervision, 0.96; the work its«lf, 0.86; working
conditions, 0.87; and all subscales together, 0.98.
Later, a test-retest was conducted with the same 52
instructors. Using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, the
test-retest reliability coefficients were computed. The
results were: achievement, 0.91; growth, 0.85; interpersonal
relations, 0.92; policy and administration, 0.95;
recognition, 0.94; responsibility, 0.90; salary, 0.93;
supervision, 0.95; the work itself, 0.90; working
conditions, 0.95; and all subscales together, 0.99.
The Thai version of the questionnaire was translated by
Arkom Vatthaisong and verified by Tanomwong Sukchotrat--an
instructor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts and a researcher
at the Institute of Thai Studies, Thamnmasat University,
Bangkok, Thailand. The content of the questionnaire was
reviewed by In Sikun, who was president at Nakhon Rajsima
Teachers College, Thailand.
89
Vatthaisong conducted a pilot study with 20 faculty
members at Loei Teachers College, Thailand. The split-half
reliability test was used to determine reliability. Results
of analysis showed a high reliability coefficient for the
instrument. These results revealed a reliability coef-
ficient of 0.97, with significance at the 0.01 level (df=19)
and r 2. 0.549.
Analysis and Treatment of Data
Upon the return of the questionnaires, the researcher
assigned a code to each item of data collected and entered
coded data into an IBM computer terminal at the NTSU Data
Processing Laboratory. Statistics used in the study include
frequency, mean, percentage, standard deviation, one-way
ANOVA and two-way ANOVA (SPSS Inc., 1983). The level of
significance was set at .05 in order to be able to compare
the results of this study with the results of Vatthaisong's
study. If any significant differences were found while
testing the hypotheses using one-way ANOVA, the Scheffe'
method was employed to find the significant pairs. The
level of significance for post hoc comparison was set at
.10. The Scheffe* method, according to Ferguson (1981), is
more rigorous than the other three tests, namely Tukey,
Newman-Keuls, or Duncan. The Scheffe' method is appropriate
for this study because it permits the comparison between
groups of unequal numbers while the other methods require
equal numbers.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
Division of Planning, Department of Teacher Education, Ministry of Education (1984). The education statistics 1983. Bangkok: Ministry of Education. ~
Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Hinkle, D.E. (1979). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Huck, S.W. (1974). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. ~~
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ~
McGreal, T.L. (1969). An investigation of organizational variables affecting teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International. 29 , 2067A.
Seegmiller, J.F. (1977). Job satisfaction of faculty arid —at the college of eastern Utah. Provo, Utah:
Office of Institutional Research College of Eastern 489^* Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 139
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1966). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Rochester, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 1235A.
SPSS Inc. (1983). SPSS-X: User's guide. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Vatthaisong, A. (1983). A study of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in teacher training institutions in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 4 6 8A. —
Wickstrom, R.A. (1971). An investigation into job satisfaction among teachers (Doctoral dissertation,
90
91
University of Oregon, 1971) International, 32, 1249A.
Dissertation Abstracts
Wood, O.R. (1974). An analysis of faculty motivation to work dn the North Carolina community college system (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 90Ia^ ~ ~ —
Wood, O.R. (1976). A research project: Measuring job satisfaction of the community college staff. Community College Review, 3 (3), 57-67.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents the findings and provides
discussion and interpretation of data analyses. An attempt
was made to answer all the questions raised in Chapter I.
The four questions are concerned with, first, level of job
satisfaction among faculty members at six non-metropolitan
teachers colleges in central Thailand as measured by ten
facets of job satisfaction; second, comparison of job
satisfaction among faculty on each of the ten facets and the
determination of whether any significant differences exist
on the basis of their demographic classifications (sex and
years of teaching experience at the college level, salary
levels, academic degrees, age, position as an instructor or
administrator, and faculty affiliations); third, comparison
of overall job satisfaction among faculty according to their
demographic classifications; and, fourth, comparison of the
results of this research with the findings of Vatthaisong
(1982/1983) dealing with sex and years of teaching
experience among faculty members at the college level.
The chapter consists of four sections. The first
section presents and interprets the results by frequencies
and percentages for ten facets of job satisfaction for the
92
93
respondents. The second section presents the data which
were derived from testing the hypothesis that no significant
differences exist among members of subgroups on seven
demographic variables for each of the ten facets of job
satisfaction. The third section presents a comparison of
responses of faculty members regarding overall job
satisfaction, based on data derived from testing the
hypothesis that no significant differences exist among
members of subgroups on seven demographic variables. The
fourth section presents a comparison of the results of this
research, conducted in central Thailand, with the results of
Vatthaisong s research, conducted among faculty members at
teachers colleges in northeast Thailand.
Analysis of Level of Faculty Job Satisfaction
The purpose of this section is to present the level of
faculty job satisfaction on each of the ten facets of the
job satisfaction instrument. The first research question is
restated below.
To what extent do the faculty members express job
satisfaction as measured by the ten facets of a
modified form of the Wood Job Satisfaction Instrument?
Frequency and percentage were used to determine the
level of faculty job satisfaction on each facet of job
satisfaction and in overall job satisfaction. The level of
faculty job satisfaction on each of the ten facets is shown
94
in Table IV. Table XV also shows the frequencies and
percentages of the responses for the level of job
satisfaction among the respondents on each of the ten
facets.
Responses to the achievement factors indicate that 78.6
percent of the responses tend toward satisfaction while 22.3
percent tend toward dissatisfaction. In relation to the
growth factor, 73 percent of the responses indicate
satisfaction while 27 percent indicate dissatisfaction.
Relating to interpersonal relations, 84.8 percent of the
responses tend toward satisfaction while 15.3 percent
indicate dissatisfaction. Concerning the policy and
administration facet, 62.6 percent of the responses tend
toward satisfaction while 37.4 percent tend toward
dissatisfaction. On the recognition facet, 76.2 percent of
the responses lean toward satisfaction while 23.8 percent
lean toward dissatisfaction. Concerning the responsibility
facet, the table shows that 80.7 percent of the responses
lean toward satisfaction while 19.3 percent lean toward
dissatisfaction. On the salary facet, 62.3 percent of the
responses tend toward satisfaction while 37.7 percent tend
toward dissatisfaction. For the last three facets in
supervision, the work itself, and working conditions, 57.6
percent, 74.4 percent and 71.3 percent of the responses tend
toward satisfaction while 42.4 percent, 25.7 percent and
95
TABLE IV
FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE FOR LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AT NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES
IN CENTRAL THAILAND, DEFINED BY TEN FACETS
Dissatisfied VD MD SD SS
Satisfied MS VS
Achievement Percentage Average
Growth Percentage Average
Interpersonal Relations Percentage Average
Policy and Administratio Percentage Average
Recognition Percentage Average
Responsibility Percentage Average
Salary Percentage Average
Supervision Percentage Average
The Work Itself Percentage Average
Working Conditions Percentage Average
36 74 286 737 591 47 2 . 0 4 . 2 1 6 . 1 4 1 . 6 3 4 . 4 2 . 7
40 2 2 . 3 7 8 . 6
40 95 275 608 450 50 2 . 6 6 . 3 1 8 . 1 4 0 . 1 2 9 . 6 3 . 3
2 7 . 0 7 3 . 0
10 59 162 606 602 79 0 . 7 3 . 9 1 0 . 7 3 9 . 9 3 9 . 7 5 . 2
1 5 . 3 8 4 . 8
n 84 213 554 930 457 39 3 . 7 9 . 4 2 4 . 3 4 0 . 8 2 0 . 1 1 . 7
36 3 7 . 4 6 2 . 6
36 58 207 557 365 42 2 . 8 4 . 6 1 6 . 4 4 4 . 0 2 8 . 9 3 . 3
17 2 3 . 8 7 6 . 2
17 44 184 550 422 48 1 . 3 3 . 5 1 4 . 5 4 3 . 5 3 3 . 4 3 . 8
82 1 9 . 3 8 0 . 7
3 . 8
82 159 331 596 322 28 5 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 8 3 9 . 3 2 1 . 2 1 . 8
228 3 7 . 7 6 2 . 3
1 . 8
228 320 740 1090 579 79 7 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 4 . 4 3 5 . 9 1 9 . 1 2 . 6
11 4 2 . 4 5 7 . 6
11 47 202 425 287 40 1 . 1 4 . 6 2 0 . 0 4 2 . 0 2 8 . 4 4 . 0
2 5 . 7 7 4 . 4 4 . 0
49 122 336 780 439 45 2 . 8 6 . 9 1 9 . 0 4 4 . 0 2 4 . 8 2 . 5 2 8 . 7 7 1 . 3
96
28.7 percent tend toward dissatisfaction respectively. The
percentages of very dissatisfaction (VD) and very
satisfaction (VS) are slightly different for most facets,
but the total percentages of satisfaction are definitely
greater than dissatisfaction. The responses shown in Table
IV, then, indicate that the respondents were slightly to
moderately satisfied with respect to the ten facets of job
satisfaction.
Table V presents the overall level of satisfaction
among faculty members as determined by their response from
items 1 through 67 of a modified form of the Wood Job
Satisfaction Instrument. Results in Table V show that 70.1
percent of the responses tend toward satisfaction and 29.8
percent tend toward dissatisfaction. This result shows that
faculty members had more job satisfaction than
dissatisfaction. Of the faculty members, 40.6 percent
indicate slight satisfaction and 26.6 percent indicate
moderate satisfaction while only 2.9 percent indicate that
they were very satisfied. These responses indicate that
faculty members were more slightly and moderately satisfied
with their jobs than very satisfied.
Results in Table VI show that 77.9 percent of the
responses tend toward satisfaction while only 22.2 percent
tend toward dissatisfaction. This finding indicates that
more faculty members were satisfied with their job than were
97
TABLE V
OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AT NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES IN CENTRAL THAILAND,
DEFINED BY ITEM 1 THROUGH ITEM 67
Level of Satisfaction
Frequency of Responses
Total of Percentage
Very Dissatisfied 593 3. .5
Moderately Dissatisfied 1, 191 7. .0 29 .8
Slightly Dissatisfied 3. 277 19. 3
Slightly Satisfied 6, 879 40. 6
Moderately Satisfied 4, 514 26. 6 70 .1
Very Satisfied 497 2. 9
Total 16, 951 100. 0 100, .0*
Note: n = 253.
* Adjusted for .1 percent discrepancy due to roundinq of computations.
dissatisfied. Table VI also shows that 49.0 percent of the
responses reveal slight satisfaction, 24.9 percent moderate
satisfaction, and 4.0 percent very satisfied. This finding
indicates that faculty members were more slightly and
moderately satisfied with their overall satisfaction than
very satisfied.
98
TABLE VI
OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AT NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES IN CENTRAL THAILAND,
DEFINED BY ITEM 68
Level of Satisfaction
Frequency Responses
of %
Total of Percentage
Very Dissatisfied 3 1.2
Moderately Dissatisfied 7 2.8 22.2
Slightly Dissatisfied 46 18.2
Slightly Satisfied 124 49.0
Moderately Satisfied 63 24.9 77.9
Very Satisfied 10 4.0
Total 253 100.0 100.0*
Note: n = 253.
* Adjusted for .1 percent discrepancy due to roundinq of computations.
Testing the First Null Hypothesis
The purpose of this section is to present the data
which were derived from testing hypothesis one. The
research question is restated below.
Do significant correlations exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their job
satisfaction on the ten facets of a modified form of
the Wood Job Satisfaction Instrument?
99
This research question is translated into a hypothesis as
follows.
No significant difference exists in the response to
satisfaction on each of the ten facets between or among
the groups—male and female faculty, faculty with under
ten years of teaching experience and faculty with over
ten years of teaching experience, faculty with a
bachelor's degree and faculty with a master's degree or
higher, faculty who have a different category in their
age, faculty who are instructors and administrators,
faculty who have a different category in their faculty
affiliations and faculty who have a different category
in their salary levels,
A one-way ANOVA and a two-way ANOVA were used to test
the data for the null hypothesis. A two-way ANOVA was used
to test the hypothesis on sex and years of teaching
experience for each of the ten facets of job satisfaction.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test the hypothesis on age,
degree levels, salary levels, faculty affiliations, and work
positions for each of the ten facets of job satisfaction.
The level of significance was set at .05. The Scheffe'
method with the level of significance at .10 was employed to
find the significant pairs after using a one-way ANOVA.
Table VII presents the mean scores on each of the ten
facets on the basis of sex and years of teaching experience.
100
TABLE VII
MEANS FOR TEN FACETS DEFINED BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Means
Fa- Entire cet Popu-No.* lation M
M M F F With With With With
Under Over Under Over Under Over 10 10 10 10 10 10 Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp.
1 28 .56 28 .26 28 . 98 28 .28 28 .67 27 .65 28 .47 29 . 00 28 .97
2 23 . 86 23 .76 23 .99 23 .94 23 . 83 22 .84 24 .08 25 h-»
00
23 . 46
3 25 .78 25 .20 26 .57 25 .44 25 . 9 1 24 .67 25 . 38 26 .30 26 .69
4 33 .24 33 .36 33 .08 32 . 3 1 33 .60 31 .89 33 .86 32 .79 33 .22
5 20. .07 19 .95 20, .23 19 .37 20. .34 18 . 8 1 20 .34 20, .00 20. .34
6 20 . 77 20 .46 21. ,19 20, .43 20. .90 19, .54 20. .78 21. ,42 21. .08
7 2 1 . 96 22, .03 21 . 86 21. 44 22 . 15 20 . ,78 22 . 45 22 . 18 21 . 72
8 42 . 75 42. 98 42 . 45 41 . 20 43 . 35 39 . 43 44 . 18 43 . 18 42 . 12
9 1 6 . 15 16 . 11 1 6 . 20 1 6 . 26 1 6 . 11 1 5 . 59 1 6 . 28 1 7 . 00 1 5 . 85
10 2 7 .
* Tf
22 27 .
l "f~ - v
31 27 . 08 2 6 . 26 2 7 . 58 2 5 . 94 27 . 78 2 6 . 61 2 7 . 30
1. = Achievement 2. = Growth 3. = Interpersonal Relations 4. = Policy and Administration 5. = Recognition
6. = Responsibility 7. = Salary 8. = Supervision 9. = The Work Itself
10. = Working Conditions
101
Testing the First Null Hypothesis Using a Two-Way ANOVA
Results of a two-way analysis of variance for sex and
years of teaching experience a^e presented in eleven tables
ranging from Table VIXX to Ta^>le XIX. The results which
were based on the achievement|facet are presented in Table
VIII. Results show that mean scores of achievement between
male and female faculty membeajrs or between those who had ten
years of teaching experience cjr less and those who had over
ten years of teaching experience are not significantly
different. Moreover, no significant difference exists in
the interaction between sex arid years of teaching experience
regarding achievement. The findings indicate that the
variables of sex and years of teaching experience and the
interaction between the variables of sex and years of
teaching experience made no statistical differences on
faculty members satisfaction according to achievement on
their jobs.
Table IX presents a two-wp.y analysis of variance
concerning the growth facet. No significant differences
emerged between the mean scorejs of male and female faculty
members and those who had different levels of years in
teaching experience. Yet, a significant difference in mean
scores was found in the interaction between sex and years of
teaching experience regarding the growth facet. This
finding indicates that sex/yeaojs of teaching experience had
102
TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE ACHIEVEMENT FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 34.15 1 34.15 1 .59 .21
Years of Teaching Experience 9.61 1 9.61 0 .45 .50
Sex by Years of Experience 8.95 1 8.95 0 .42 .52
Within Cells 5333.52 249 21.42
Total 5384.17 252 21.37
TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE GROWTH FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
S e x 2.93
Years of Teaching Experience 0.48
Sex by Years of Experience 110.02
Within Cells 5266.57
Total 5380.16
1
1
1
249
252
2.93
0.48
110.02
21.15
21.35
0.14
0.02
5.20
.71
.88
.02*
Significance at .05 level.
103
an effect on faculty members' satisfaction according to the
growth facet.
Table X explains Table IX about the significant
interaction between sex and years of teaching experience
regarding the growth facet. Male faculty members with over
ten years of teaching experience were more satisfied
(mean=24.08) with their growth than male faculty members
with under ten years of teaching experience (mean=22.84)
whereas female faculty members with under ten years of
teaching experience were more satisfied (mean=25.18) with
their growth than females with over ten years of teaching
experience (mean=23.46). In other words, the longer the
period of time male faculty were engaged in their
profession, the more satisfied they were with their
TABLE X
COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE GROWTH FACET DEFINED BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Means
Facet Males With Males With Females With Females With Under 10 Over 10 Under 10 Over 10 Years of Years of Years of Years of Experience Experience Experience Experience
Growth 22.84 24.08 25.18 23.46
104
TABLE XI
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS FACET
AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 120.95 1 120.95 6. 77 .01
Years of Teaching Experience 15.72 1 15.72 0 . 88 .35
Sex by Years of Experience 1.24 1 1.24 0 . 07 .79
Within Cells 4450.51 249 17.87
Total
* „ 4_
4583.60 252 18.19
personal growth. This finding was opposite to that for
female faculty.
Table XI shows a two-way analysis of variance on the
interpersonal relations facet for sex and years of teaching
experience. A significant difference occurred between the
mean scores of male and female faculty members on the
interpersonal relations facet. There was no significant
difference found in mean scores for those who had different
levels of years in teaching experience. No significant
interaction was found between sex and years of teaching
experience upon the interpersonal relations facet.
105
TABLE XII
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION FACET
AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 2.68 1 2.68 0. 05 .83
Years of Teaching Experience 81.72 1 81.72 1. 45 .23
Sex by Years of Experience 29.72 1 29.72 0. 52 .47
Within Cells 14070.56 249 56.51
Total 14186.81 252 56.30
Table XII presents a two—way analysis of variance for
the two demographic classifications based on the policy and
administration facet. No significant difference appeared
between the mean scores of male and female faculty members.
Faculty with ten years of experience and those with less
than ten years did not differ significantly on this
dimension. No significant interaction between the two
variables was found.
Table XIII displays the results of a two-way analysis
of variance for the two demographic classifications
regarding the recognition facet. The analysis revealed no
significant difference in scores between male and female
106
TABLE XIII
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE RECOGNITION FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 6.95 1 6.95 0 .39 .53
Years of Teaching Experience 49.43 1 49.43 2 .78 .10
Sex by Years of Experience 17.72 1 17.72 1 .00 .32
Within Cells 4430.67 249 17.79
Total 4502.72 252 17.87
faculty members. The mean scores between faculty members
who worked over ten years and those who worked ten years or
less showed no significant difference. No significant
interaction between sex and years of teaching experience was
found.
Table XIV shows the results of a two-way analysis of
variance for the two demographic classifications regarding
the responsibility facet. No significant difference was
found in mean scores either between male and female faculty
members or between those two groups who had different levels
of years of teaching experience. The statistical analysis
also revealed no significant interaction based on sex and
years of teaching experience.
107
TABLE XIV
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 34.60 1 34.60 2. 48 .12
Years of Teaching Experience 13.82 1 13.82 0. 99 .32
Sex by Years of Experience 31.29 1 31.29 2. 25 .13
Within Cells 3469.48 249 13.93
Total 3546.70 252 14.07
Table XV presents results of a two-way analysis of
variance for sex and years of teaching experience concerning
the salary facet. No significant difference was found in
mean scores between male and female faculty members. Nor
was any difference found among those who had different
levels of years of teaching experience. Sex by years of
teaching experience revealed no significant interaction.
Table XVI shows results of a two-way analysis of
variance for the two demographic classifications according
to the supervision facet. The comparison of mean scores
from sources of variation--sex, years of teaching experience
and sex by years of experience—shows no significant
differences.
TABLE XV
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE SALARY FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
108
Sources of Variation
Sum of df Variance F p Squares Estimate
Sex 1.02 1 1.02 0.03 .85
Years of Teaching Experience 24.82 1 24.82 0.82 .36
Sex by Years of Experience 56.77 1 56.77 1.88 .17
Within Cells 7517.19 249 30.19
Total 7600.52 252 30.16
TABLE XVI
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE SUPERVISION FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of df Squares
Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 10.55 1 10.55 0.07 .79
Years of Teaching Experience 227.14 1 227.14 1.54 .21
Sex by Years of Experience 422.04 1 422.04 2.87 .09
Within Cells 36604.23 249 147.00
Total 37270.81 252 147.90
109
Table XVII shows results of a two-way analysis of
variance based on the work itself facet. Sex or years of
teaching experience revealed no significant differences in
mean scores. However, the interaction between sex and years
of teaching experience did make a statistical significance.
TABLE XVII
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE WORK ITSELF FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 0.48 1 0.48 0 .05 .83
Years of Teaching Experience 1.02 1 1.02 0 .10 .75
Sex by Years of Experience 42.24 1 42.24 4 .09 .04
Within Cells 2572.47 249 10.33
Total 2616.29 252 10.38
Significance at .05 level.
Table XVIII focuses on the mean scores that make a
significant interaction between sex and years of teaching
experience as shown in Table XVII. The mean scores in Table
XVIII show that male faculty members with over ten years of
teaching experience were more satisfied (mean=16.28) with
their work than male faculty members with under ten years of
teaching experience (mean=15.59) whereas female faculty
110
members with under ten years of teaching experience were
more satisfied (mean^l?.00) in their work than female
faculty members with over ten years of teaching experience
(mean=15.85).
Table XVIII
COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE WORK ITSELF FACET DEFINED BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Means
F a C S t SndJr ?n t K " a l e s » i t h With Females With Under 10 Over 10 Under 10 Over 10 Years of Years of Years of Years of Experience Experience Experience Experience
The Work
Itself 15.59 16.28 17.00 15.85
Table XIX shows results of a two-way analysis of
variance for the two demographic classifications based on
the working conditions facet. It shows that no matter what
sources of variation—sex, years of teaching experience, and
sex by years of experiences—were sought to compare the mean
scores on each variable, the results of a two-way analysis
of variance showed no significant differences.
Testing the First Hypothesis Using One-Wav ANOVA
Results of a one-way analysis of variance for age,
degree levels, salary levels, faculty affiliations, and work
Ill
TABLE XIX
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE WORKING CONDITIONS FACET AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of Variation
Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Sex 1.55 1 1.55 0 .05
Years of Teaching Experience 87.49 1 87.49 3 .09 .08
Sex by Years of Experience 16.32 1 16.32 0 .57 .45
Within Cells 7059.95 249 28.35
Total 7167.04 252 28.44
positions are presented in six tables ranging from Table XX
to Table XXV. The results of one-way analysis of variance
based on mean scores of the ten facets defined by age as
shown in Table XX indicate no significant difference on each
of the ten facets of job satisfaction among faculty members
who had different levels of age at the .05 level of
significance. Table XXI also shows no significant
difference at the same .05 level of significance on each of
all facets defined by degree levels. This means that all
faculty members who attained different degree levels showed
no significant difference in job satisfaction on the ten
facets.
112
TABLE XX
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE TEN FACETS AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY AGE
Facets Age Means S.D. N df
Achievement
Growth
Interpersonal Rel
Recognition
Responsibility
Salary
Supervision
The Work Itself
Working Conditions
Policy and Admin.
Up to 25 25 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More
. Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46/More
29.60 29.07 28.39 28.03 27.60 24.05 23.66 23.74 27.40 25.90 25.67 25.71 21.20 19.83 20.23 19.68 2 2 . 0 0 20.90 20.54 21.32 2 6 . 6 0 21.83 21.65 22.93 48.60 42.15 42.85 42.77 18.60 16.26 15.86 16.84 29.00 27.04 26. 83 29.16 38.20 32.82 33.32 33.10
1.52 5 4.91 72 4.65 145 4.10 31 4.16 5 4.08 72 4.81 145 4.87 31 2.30 5 4.37 72 4.26 145 4.38 31 4.09 5 4.08 72 4.27 145 4.53 31 2.74 5 3.34 72 3.93 145 3.95 31 3.58 5 5.10 72 5.69 145 5.42 31 9.79 5
12.08 72 12.53 145 11.13 31 3.21 5 3.27 72 3.28 145 2.62 31 4.90 5 5.08 72 5.48 145 5.04 31 6.06 5 7.71 72 7.59 145 6.82 31
3/249 .57 .63
3/249 1.23 .30
3/249 .29 .83
3/249 .35 .79
3/249 .60 .61
3/249 1.70 .17
3/249 .44 .72
3/249 1.87 .13
3/249 1.86 .14
3/249 .81 .49
TABLE XXI
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE TEN FACETS
AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY DEGREE LEVELS
113
Facets Degrees Means S.D. N df F P
Achievement Bachelor's 28.34 4.82 106 1/251 .43 .51 Master's or
1/251 .43 .51
Growth Higher 28.73 4.49 147
Growth Bachelor's 23.85 4.56 106 1/251 .00 .97 Master's or
1/251 .00 .97
Higher 23.87 4.68 147 Interpersonal
4.68 147
Relations Bachelor's 25.57 4.63 106 1/251 .41 .52 Master's or
1/251 .41 .52
Higher 25.92 3.99 147 Policy and
3.99 147
Adminis-tration Bachelor's 33.13 7.80 106 1/251 .04 .84
Master's or 1/251 .04 .84
Higher 33.33 7.31 147 Recognition Bachelor's 19.61 4.41 106 1/251 2.15 .14
Master's or 1/251 2.15 .14
Higher 20.40 4.07 147 Responsi-
147
bility Bachelor's 20.36 4.10 106 1/251 2.21 .14 Master's or
1/251 2.21 .14
Salary Higher 21.07 3.46 147
Salary Bachelor's 21.90 5.97 106 1/251 .01 .90 Master's or
1/251 .01 .90
Supervision Higher 21.99 5.14 147
Supervision Bachelor's 42.40 12.69 106 1/251 .16 . 69 Master's or
1/251 .16
The Work Higher 43.01 11.80 147
The Work 11.80 147
Itself Bachelor's 16.17 3.23 106 1/251 .01 . 93 Master's or
1/251 .01
Working Higher 16.14 3.23 147
Working 3.23 147
Conditions Bachelor's 2<fCll 5.66 106 1/251 .07 .79 Master's or
1/251 .07 .79
Higher 27.29 5.10 147
114
TABLE XXII
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE TEN FACETS
AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY SALARY LEVELS
Facets Levels
Salary Means S.D. N df
Achievement
Growth
Interpersonal Relations
Policy and Admin.
Recognition
Responsi-bility
Salary
Supervision
The Work Itself
Working Conditions
C3 30 .91 4 .51 16 C4 27 .56 4 .33 43 C5/Higher 28 .59 4 .64 194 C3 24 .94 4 .96 16 C4 23 .93 4 .43 43 C5/Higher 23 .76 4 .65 194
C3 26 .75 4 .01 16 C4 25 .19 5 .16 43 C5/Higher 25 .83 4 .07 194
C3 34 .44 6 .26 16 C4 33 .25 8 .07 43 C5/Higher 33 .14 7 .49 194 C3 20 .12 4 .42 16 C4 20 .19 3 .79 43 C5/Higher 20 .04 4 .32 194
C3 21. .06 3, .55 16 C4 20. 53 3. ,74 43 C5/Higher 20. 80 3. 79 194 C3 21. 62 5. 54 16 C4 21. 70 5. 21 43 C5/Higher 22. 04 5. 57 194 C3 46. 50 11. 87 16 C4 42. 00 12. 54 43 C5/Higher 42. 61 12. 11 194
C3 17. 44 2. 80 16 C4 16. 19 3. 11 43 C5/Higher 16. 04 3. 27 194
C3 26. 75 5. 49 16 C4 26. 91 5. 74 43 C5/Higher 27. 32 5. 25 194
2/250 3.18 .04*
2/250 .48 .62
2/250 .84 .43
2/250 .22 .80
2/250 .02 .98
2/250
2/250
2/250
•14 .87
.10 .90
.85 .43
2/250 1.40 .25
2/250 .17 .84
Significance at .05 level.
115
However, the results of one-way ANOVA based on mean
scores of the ten facets by salary levels as shown in Table
XXII indicate no significant difference on each of the ten
facets of job satisfaction among faculty members except for
the achievement facet (F=3.18, df=2/250, p<.04). At this
point, it was not known which pairs of the sample means were
statistically significant. The Scheffe• method was used as
a post hoc hypothesis testing procedure to seek an answer.
Table XXIII shows the results of the Scheffe' post hoc
comparison. The results indicate that a pair of
TABLE XXIII
PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF SAMPLE MEANS CONTRIBUTED BY FACULTY MEMBERS
AT THREE DIFFERENT SALARY LEVELS ON THE ACHIEVEMENT FACET OF JOB SATISFACTION
G G G R R R
Means Groups P 2
P 3
P 1
27.5581 GRP 2 28.5928 GRP 3 30.9375 GRP 1 *
* Significant at .10 level.
Note: Group 1 = C3 Group 2 = C4 Group 3 = C5
116
groups namely, those who had salary classification 3 and
those who had salary classification 4 showed a significant
difference on their job satisfaction on the achievement
facet. Those who were at C3 salary level possessed more
satisfaction on the achievement facet than did those who
were at C4. There were no significant differences between
the other pairs of groups.
Table XXIV shows no significant differences among mean
scores on the ten facets by faculty members of all three
faculties—education, humanities and sciences. This means
that the factor of faculty affiliations did not make any
significant difference in faculty members' job satisfaction.
Does the fact that faculty members only teach or both
teach and administer make any statistical differences in a
comparison of their mean scores on their job satisfaction?
This should be considered a controversial issue. Table XXV
reveals that each paired group of instructors only and
administrators who performed teaching showed no significant
differences on mean scores of the facets of job satisfaction
except the working conditions facet (F=4.84, df=1/251,
p<.03). The difference between the mean scores is 1.50 and
the instructors showed more satisfaction with working
conditions than did the administrators who taught.
117
TABLE XXIV
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE TEN FACETS AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY FACULTY AFFILIATIONS
Facets Faculties Means S.D. N df F P
Achieve-ment Education 29.01 4.55 75 2/250 .97 .38 Humanities 28.69 4.31 96
2/250 .97 .38
Growth Sciences 28.01 5.02 82
Growth Education 24.52 4.40 75 2/250 1.08 .34 Humanities 23.57 4.64 96 2/250 1.08 .34
Sciences 23.60 4.78 82 Inter-
4.78 82
personal Relations Education 25.77 3.86 75 2/250 .00 1.00 Humanities i 25.79 4.35 96
2/250 .00 1.00
Policy and Sciences 25.77 4.56 82
Policy and 4.56 82
Admin. Education 34.23 7.47 75 2/250 1.16 .32 Humanities 32.47 7.74 96 2/250 .32
Sciences 33.26 7.23 82 Recog-
7.23 82
nition Education 20.52 4.07 75 2/250 . 63 .53 Humanities 19.96 4.40 96 2/250 .53
Sciences 19.79 4.17 82 Responsi-
4.17 82
bility Education 20.89 3.75 75 2/250 . 06 .94 Humanities 20.75 3.71 96 2/250 .94
Salary Sciences 20.68 3.83 82
Salary Education 22.23 5.17 75 2/250 .13 .87 Humanities 21.88 5.62 96 2/250 .87
Sciences 21.79 5.68 82 Super-
5.68 82
vision Education Humanities
43.27 42.46
2.36 2.50
75 96
2/250 .10 .91
The Work Sciences 42.63 1.70 82
The Work 1.70 82
Itself Education 16.27 3.35 75 2/250 .10 .90 Humanities 16.16 2.91 96 2/250 .10 .90
Working Sciences 16.04 3.47 82
Working 3.47 82
Conditions Education 27.40 5.83 75 2/250 .62 .54 Humanities 27.53 4.49 96 2/250 .62 .54
Sciences 26.68 5.77 82
118
TABLE XXV
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BASED ON THE TEN FACETS AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS BY WORK POSITIONS
Facets Positions Means S.D. N df
Achievement
Growth
Inter-personal Relations
Policy and Adminis-tration
Recog-nition
Instructor 28.86 4.78 102 Administrator 28.36 4.52 151
Instructor 24.10 4.67 102 Administrator 23.70 4.59 151
Responsi-bility
Salary
Super-vision
The Work Itself
Working Condi-tions
Instructor 26.27 4.15 102 Administrator 25.44 4.32 151
Instructor 33.18 7.33 102 Administrator 33.29 7.64 151
Instructor 20.09 4.38 102 Administrator 20.06 4.14 151
Instructor 20.59 3.79 102 Administrator 20.89 3.73 151
Instructor 22.01 5.86 102 Administrator 21.92 5.25 151
Instructor Administrator
42.09 12.39 102 43.20 12.02 151
Instructor 16.29 3.23 102 Administrator 16.05 3.22 151
Instructor 28.11 5.20 102 Administrator 26.61 5.36 151
1/251 .71 .40
1/251 .45 .50
1/251 2.32 .13
1/251 .01 .90
1/251 .00 .96
1/251 .40 .52
1/251 .02 .90
1/251 .51 .47
1/251 .34 .56
1/251 4.84 .03*
Significance at .05 level
119
Testing the Second Null Hypothesis
The purpose of this section is to present the data
derived from testing the second null hypothesis which
compares the overall job satisfaction of faculty members on
the basis of demographic classifications. The research
question is restated below.
significant differences exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their overall
job satisfaction?
The research question can be translated into the following
null hypothesis:
No significant difference exists in faculty members'
job satisfaction between or among the following
groups (1) male and female faculty, (2) faculty with
under ten years of teaching experience and those with
over ten years of teaching experience, (3) different
groups of faculty classified by work positions, age,
salary levels, academic degrees, and faculty
affiliations.
A one-way ANOVA and a two-way ANOVA were used to test
the data for the second null hypothesis. A two-way ANOVA
was used to test this hypothesis on sex and years of
teaching experience for each of the ten facets of job
satisfaction. A one-way ANOVA was used to test the second
120
hypothesis on age, degree levels, salary levels, faculty
affiliations, and work positions for each of the ten facets
of job satisfaction. The level of significance was set at
.05. The mean scores for overall job satisfaction among
faculty members as defined by sex and years of teaching
experience are shown in Table XXVI.
TABLE XXVI
MEANS FOR THE OVERALL SATISFACTION (ITEM 68) DEFINED BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Classification Number of Instructors Means
Males 146 3.97
Females 107 4.17
Instructors with Under 10 Years Experience 70 3.98
Instructors with Over 10 Years Experience 183 4.08
Males with Under 10 Years Experience 37 3.81
Males with Over 10 Years Experience 109 4.03
Females with Under 10 Years Experience 33
00 1—1 •sr
Females with Over 10 Years Experience
74 4.16
121
Testing the Second Hypothesis Using a Two-Way ANOVA
To find significant differences in faculty members'
overall job satisfaction according to their sex and years of
teaching experience, a two-way analysis of variance was
employed. Results of the analysis are presented in Table
XXVII.
TABLE XXVII
COMPARISON OF OVERALL SATISFACTION BASED ON A SINGLE ITEM (ITEM 68) AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY SEX AND YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Sources of sum of df Variance F p Variation Squares Estimate
Sex 2 .50 1 2.50 3.12 .08
Years of Teaching Experience 0 .61 1 0.61 .76 .38
Sex by Years of Experience 0, .70 1 0.70 .87 .35
Within Cells Total
199. 203.
56 22
249 252
0.80 0.81
Results showed no significant difference in overall
satisfaction between male and female faculty members.
Neither did significant differences emerge between the
faculty with under ten years of teaching experience and
122
those with over ten years of teaching experience. The
interaction between sex and years of teaching experience did
not show any statistical significance.
Testing the Second Null Hypothesis Using a One-Way ANOVA
The results of testing the second null hypothesis by
using a one-way analysis of variance for age, degree levels,
salary levels, faculty affiliations, and work positions are
presented in Table XXVIII. Table XXVIII shows mean scores
and results of a one-way analysis of variance for five
demographic classifications relating to overall satisfaction
based on a single item (item 68). Like sex and years of
teaching experience as shown in Table XXVII, no significant
difference between the mean scores of any two-group com-
parison among the variables age, degree levels, salary
levels, faculty affiliations, and positions was revealed.
This finding indicates that faculty members who belong to
different categories in demographic classifications had no
significant difference in overall job satisfaction.
Comparing the Results of This Research With the Results Discovered by Vatthaisong
As mentioned before, the results discovered by
Vatthaasong among faculty members in northeast Thailand were
based on sex and years of teaching experience. A part of
the results m this study, therefore, was compared to the
results of his study on the same basis. Comparison will be
123
TABLE XXVIII
COMPARISON OF OVERALL SATISFACTION BASED ON A SINGLE ITEM (ITEM 68) AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS
BY ALL THE SELECTED VARIABLES
Variables Categories Means S.D. N df F P
Age Up to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 or More
4.80 4.07 4.02 4.06
1.30 .88 .82
1.18
5 72
145 31
3/249 3.04 .08
Degree Levels Bachelor's Master's or
Higher
4.06
4.05
.95
.86
106
147
1/251 .00 .98
Salary Levels C3 C4 C5 or Higher
4.06 3.93 4.08
1.12 1.01 .85
16 43
194
2/250 .50 .60
Faculty Affiliations Education
Humanities Sciences
4.07 4.01 4.10
.93
.90
.87
75 96 82
2/250 .21 .81
Work Positions Teacher Administrator
4.11 4.02
.95
.86 102 151
1/251 .58 .44
based on three categories: first, the level of faculty
satisfaction with each of the ten facets; second, job
satisfaction on each of the ten facets; and third, overall
job satisfaction among faculty members. The research
question is restated below.
Are central Thailand faculty members' job satisfaction
levels congruent with Vatthaisong's findings of faculty
members in northeast Thailand?
124
The Level of Faculty Satisfaction
Table XXIX shows the level of faculty job satisfaction
on each of the ten facets based on the two studies. The
similar results of these two studies indicated faculty
members' satisfaction with aspects of their work such as
opportunities to grow, achieve, be responsible in their job,
be recognized by others, and enjoy teaching. These results
also indicated satisfaction with aspects of their
environment such as interaction with colleagues, the
characteristics of supervision, policy and administration,
and working conditions. Both studies showed that faculty
members' responses fell more often in the slightly and
moderately satisfied categories with their jobs than in the
very satisfied.
The different results of these two studies according to
the level of faculty job satisfaction are as follows:
1. While Vatthaisong's study showed that the faculty
members ranked salary as dissatisfactory, the present study
showed that the faculty members in the central region ranked
salary as satisfactory, one rank above supervision, the
facet which was placed at the lowest level of satisfaction.
2. While Vatthaisong"s study showed that the faculty
members' ranked policy and administration carried on in
their institutions as the lowest of the satisfactory facets,
faculty m the present study ranked policy and administra-
tion above supervision and salary.
TABLE XXIX
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF THE TWO STUDIES ON THE LEVEL OF FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION
WITH EACH OF THE TEN FACETS
125
_ Yatthaisong's Results The Present Study's Results Facets % Ranks Facets % Ranks
Achievement 78 .43 3 Achievement 78 .60 3
Growth 71 .70 6 Growth 73 .00 6
Interpersonal Relations 80 .38 1
Interpersonal Relations 84 .80 1
Policy and Administration 58 .78 9
Policy and Administration 62 .60 8
Recognition 77. .92 4 Recognition 76, .20 4
Responsibility 77. 29 5 Responsibility 80. 70 2
Salary 41. 93 10 Salary 62. 30 9
Supervision 62. 24 8 Supervision 57. 60 10
The Work Itself 78. 92 2 The Work Itself 74. 40 5
Working Conditions 69. 27 7
Working Conditions 71. 30 7
Note: In Vatthaisong's Study, n = 192. ~ In the Present Study, n = 253.
3. While Vatthaisong's and the present study's results
showed that the faculty members were satisfied with the work
itself and responsibility, the former study indicated that
the faculty members showed a little stronger feeling toward
the work itself than toward responsibility (the work itself
= 78.92%, responsibility = 77.29%). This indicator is
126
opposite the direction of results in the present study,
(responsibility = 80.70%, the work itself = 74.40%).
Job Satisfaction on Each of the Ten Facets
The second category for the comparison of the two
studies is based on faculty members' satisfaction on the ten
facets according to sex and years of teaching experience,
and on interaction between these two variables. Vatthai-
song s study indicated that faculty members with over ten
years of teaching experience were more satisfied with
achievement and working conditions than were faculty members
with under ten years of teaching experience. No significant
difference emerged between male and female faculty members
in any facets.
The results of his study are quite different in several
respects from those found in the present study. The present
study shows that there was a significant difference between
male and female faculty members on the interpersonal
relations facet. Female faculty showed more satisfaction
(mean = 26.57) in interpersonal relations than male faculty
(mean = 25.20). There was also a significant interaction
between sex and years of teaching experience on the growth
facet; male faculty members with over ten years of teaching
experience were more satisfied (mean = 24.08) in their
growth than male faculty members with under ten years
experience (mean = 22.84) whereas female faculty members
127
with under ten years teaching experience were more satisfied
(mean = 25.18) in their growth than females with over ten
years teaching experience (mean = 23.46). Another
significant interaction between sex and years of teaching
experience showed the same directions as above for the work
itself facet (mean for males with over ten years = 16.28,
under ten years = 15.59; mean for females with under ten
years = 17.00, over ten years = 15.85).
Other differences between the results of Vatthaisong's
study and the results of the present study, concerning years
of teaching experience, are that while the faculty who
possessed more years of teaching experience in his study
were significantly more satisfied with achievement and
working conditions, this study showed no significant
differences among them on any of these facets.
Overall Job Satisfaction Among Faculty Members
Regarding overall satisfaction, Vatthaisong's findings
indicated that faculty members with over ten years of
teaching experience were more satisfied with their job than
were faculty with under ten years of teaching experience.
No significant difference emerged between male and female
faculty members for overall satisfaction. The present study
findings indicate no significant differences between sexes
or different levels of years of teaching experience or
interaction of these two variables according to overall
satisfaction.
128
Concerning the level of overall satisfaction,
Vatthaisong's finding indicated that over 77 percent (77.09)
of the responses revealed more satisfaction than
dissatisfaction. The present study also showed the same
result expressed by over 77 percent (77.90) of the
responses. The similar findings of these two studies
support the conclusion that, overall, faculty members were
satisfied with their jobs.
Summary
The findings of the present study showed that faculty
members at non-metropolitan teachers colleges in central
Thailand revealed satisfaction with each of the ten facets
of job satisfaction. However, their responses tended to
fall more frequently into the categories of slightly and
moderately satisfied than into the category of very
satisfied. They expressed slight satisfaction with the
supervision facet of job satisfaction. All the results
concerning the level of job satisfaction were quite similar
to those found by Vatthaisong except for his respondents'
attitudes toward the facet of policy and administration.
The present study did not find the same results on salary as
did Vatthaisong's. He found that faculty members' feelings
tended toward dissatisfaction concerning salary.
The findings of this study showed further that faculty
members at non-metropolitan teachers colleges in central
129
Thailand revealed no significant differences on each of the
t-en facets of job satisfaction based on academic degrees,
age, and faculty affiliations. Nevertheless, the faculty
members did reveal significant differences on some of the
ten facets. Faculty members with different salary levels
showed a significant difference concerning achievement. The
Scheffe' method showed that among three groups of those
whose salary levels were different, faculty members who had
salary classification 3 were more satisfied in achievement
than those who had salary classification 4. Concerning the
working conditions facet, instructors were more satisfied
with working conditions than were administrators.
Vatthaisong's findings revealed no significant
differences between male and female faculty members on the
ten facets of job satisfaction. On the contrary, the
present study found that there was a significant difference
between male and female faculty members on the interpersonal
relations facet. Female faculty members were more satisfied
with interpersonal relations than were male faculty members.
While Vatthaisong found that faculty members with over ten
years of teaching experience were more satisfied with
achievement and working conditions than were faculty members
with under ten years of teaching experience, the present
researcher found no significant difference on any facets of
job satisfaction between those who have different levels of
years of teaching experience.
130
The present study found significant interaction between
sex and years of teaching experience on the growth and work
itself facets. The findings are that male faculty members
with over ten years experience were more satisfied with
growth and the work itself than were male faculty members
with under ten years of teaching experience while female
faculty members with under ten years experience were more
satisfied with growth and the work itself than were female
faculty members with over ten years of teaching experience.
Vatthaisong did not find any significant interaction between
sex and years of teaching experience on any facets of job
satisfaction as did this study.
Regarding overall satisfaction, Vatthaisong found that
faculty members with over ten years of teaching experience
were more satisfied with their jobs than were faculty with
under ten years of teaching experience. Yet, he found no
significant difference between male and female faculty
members for overall job satisfaction. The present re-
searcher found no significant differences between groups
according to sex, years of teaching experience, and inter-
action between these two variables concerning overall
satisfaction. All in all, the findings of both studies
regarding the level of overall satisfaction indicated that
faculty members were satisfied with their jobs.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate and
analyze job satisfaction of faculty members at non-
metropolitan teachers colleges in central Thailand. The
investigation was based on ten facets of job satisfaction,
namely achievement, recognition, growth, the work itself,
responsibilities, salary, administrative policies,
supervision, interpersonal relations, and working condition.
The emphases of the study were not only to discover the
results but also to compare some of the results of this
study to Vatthaisong's (1982/1983) findings. The emphases
were as follows:
1. To determine the level of job satisfaction among
faculty members with respect to each of the ten
facets cited above;
2. To compare job satisfaction among faculty members
on each of the ten facets and determine whether any
significant differences exist on the basis of their
demographic classifications (sex and years of
teaching experience at the college level, salary
131
132
levels, academic degrees, age, position as an
instructor or administrator, and faculty
affiliations);
3. To compare overall job satisfaction among faculty
members according to their demographic classi-
fications ;
4. To compare the results of this research with the
findings of Vatthaisong, especially those dealing
with sex and years of teaching experience.
The specific research questions were the following.
1. To what extent do the faculty members express job
satisfaction as measured by the ten facets of a
modified form of the Wood Job Satisfaction
Instrument?
2. Do significant correlations exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their job
satisfaction on the ten facets of a modified form
of the Wood Job Satisfaction Instrument?
3. Do significant differences exist between faculty
members' demographic classifications and their
overall job satisfaction?
4. Are central Thailand faculty members' job
satisfaction levels congruent with Vatthaisong's
findings of faculty members in northeast Thailand?
133
The following hypotheses were tested. (1) No
significant differences exist in faculty members' job
satisfaction on each of the ten facets of job satisfaction
between or among the following groups: male and female
faculty, faculty with under ten years of teaching experience
and those with over ten years of teaching experience, groups
of faculty with varying salary levels, academic degrees,
age, positions as instructors or administrators, and faculty
affiliations• (2) No significant difference exists in
faculty members job satisfaction between or among the
following groups (1) male and female faculty, (2) faculty
with under ten years of teaching experience and those with
over ten years of teaching experience, (3) different groups
faculty classified by work positions, age, salary levels,
academic degrees, and faculty affiliations.
Data were obtained through administration of the
Faculty Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale developed by
Wood (1973/1974). The instrument in the Thai version
employed by this researcher is different in part from the
one used by Vatthaisong in the content of demographic
classifications. A two-part questionnaire comprises the
instrument used by this researcher. The first part concerns
the seven demographic classifications: sex, years of
teaching experience, salary levels, academic degrees, age,
position as an instructor or administrator, and faculty
134
affiliations. The second part includes 67 items divided
into ten facets, namely, achievement, growth, interpersonal
relations, policy and administration, recognition,
responsibility, salary, supervision, the work itself, and
working conditions, and one single item (item 68) dealing
with overall satisfaction.
Each item of the second part of a modified form of the
Wood Job Satisfaction Instrument was designed to gather
responses on a six-point scale (1-6) from lowest to highest
satisfaction. For each item, the responses of 1, 2, or 3
were interpreted as dissatisfaction whereas responses of 4,
5, or 6 were interpreted as satisfaction.
The sample was drawn from the population of six non-
metropolitan teachers colleges in central Thailand. A total
of 288 faculty members comprised the random sample. The
questionnaires were administered to the selected faculty
members of each institution from the middle of March to the
middle of May, 1985. A total of 253 faculty members or
87.85 percent of the selected sample participated in this
study.
A one-way ANOVA was employed to test a significant
difference in faculty members' job satisfaction according to
their salary levels, academic degrees, age, position as an
instructor or administrator, and faculty affiliations. A
two-way ANOVA was used to test a significant difference
135
between faculty members' job satisfaction according to their
sex and years of teaching experience. The null hypotheses
were tested at the .05 level of significance.
Findings and Conclusions
In levels of faculty job satisfaction, findings
revealed that the major sources of satisfaction for faculty
members included achievement, growth, interpersonal
relations, recognition, responsibility, the work itself,
working conditions, policy and administration, salary and
supervision. Among the major sources of satisfaction,
salary, as well as policy and administration rendered the
least satisfaction. The results of this study on the level
of satisfaction concerning salary were similar to those of a
study contributed by Jariyavidyanont (1978/1979). Moreover,
the findings for these two facets--salary, and policy and
administration--are congruent with several studies conducted
by Hansen and Kramer (1978), Ramsey (1982), and Seegmiller
(1977). It may be concluded that faculty members'
satisfaction on these two facets should be considered a
critical issue. Responses relating to supervision tended
slightly toward satisfaction. This means that faculty
members found interaction with administrators and
supervisors to be the least rewarding aspect of their
teaching experience (Hansen and Kramer, 1978; Winkler,
1982). Their slight level of satisfaction on this crucial
136
facet demands special attention. Regarding interpersonal
relations, the result is similar to that in previous studies
(Savage, 1967/1968; Wickstrom, 1971; Holdaway, 1978;
Sorcinelli, 1978, and Vatthaisong, 1982/1983).
The findings of this study and Vatthaisong's research
contributed both similar and different perspectives
concerning the level of job satisfaction. Most respondents
for both studies showed satisfaction in the work itself and
in responsibility. Results from the present study showed
more strength of satisfaction on responsibility than on the
work itself (rank 2 and 5 respectively) whereas Vat-
thaisong" s study showed exactly the opposite. All other
levels of facets of job satisfaction in both studies were
arranged in the same manner, by ranks, except for the last 3
ranks (rank 8, 9 and 10) on policy and administration,
salary, and supervision. Supervision (rank 8) in Vatthai-
song' s study was interpreted as the least satisfactory, and
he also included working conditions (rank 7) in the same
category, while the present study considered supervision as
the most critical area (rank 10). The interpretation of
this finding is that supervision provided only slight
satisfaction. Instead, Vatthaisong's study considered
policy and administration a factor that provided only slight
satisfaction (rank 9). The present study interpreted policy
and administration and salary as factors rendering least
137
satisfaction (rank 8 and 9). Vatthaisong's respondents
overtly attributed dissatisfaction to the salary factor
(rank 10).
The present study found that faculty members did not
show a significant difference on each of the ten facets of
job satisfaction based on academic degrees, age, and faculty
affiliations. In testing the hypothesis, the present study
showed five significant findings in job satisfaction between
groups on several variables. First, faculty members with
salary classification 3 (usually lower salary) were more
satisfied in achievement than were those who had salary
classification 4 (usually higher salary). Second, in-
structors were more satisfied with working conditions than
were administrators. Third, female faculty members were
more satisfied with interpersonal relations than were male
faculty members. Fourth and fifth, sex and years of
teaching experience shared significant interaction on the
growth and work itself facets. Significant interaction for
these two facets worked as a contrast. While male faculty
members with over ten years experience were more satisfied
with these two facets than were male faculty members with
under ten years of teaching experience, female faculty
members with over ten years experience were less satisfied
with these two facets than were females with ten or fewer
years of experience.
138
It can be concluded that the greater time male faculty
members were engaged in their profession, the more job
satisfaction in growth and the work itself among them would
increase. The finding was different from the finding
concerning female faculty members. The greater time female
faculty members were involved in teaching, the less job
satisfaction among them occurred in both growth and
teaching.
Vatthaisong*s findings revealed no significant
differences between male and female faculty members on the
ten facets of job satisfaction. He did find that faculty
members with over ten years of teaching experience were more
satisfied with achievement and working conditions than were
faculty members with under ten years of teaching experience.
&lso found a significant difference in overall
satisfaction among two groups of faculty who had a different
level of years of teaching experience.
All other findings in both studies which were not
mentioned above yielded no statistical significance. Both
studies had congruent confirmation that, overall, faculty
members were satisfied with their jobs.
Implications
Findings of this study have implications for governing
bodies, college administrators and faculty members, and
others who are involved in improving policy, administration
139
and supervision, and in fulfilling the needs of faculty
members at teachers colleges in Thailand.
1. The least satisfactory facet, salary, among faculty
members at teachers colleges in northeast Thailand ranked as
dissatisfactory in Vatthaisong's study. This implies that
increment of salaries among faculty members in the northeast
region should be employed; this should work well but may not
be the best strategy when being adopted in the other region,
where close attention should first be given to the area of
supervision.
2. While faculty members in Vatthaisong's study were
satisfied only slightly with policy and administration and
had a low level of satisfaction in the supervision facet,
faculty members in the present study showed slight
satisfaction with supervision and a low level of
satisfaction in the policy and administration facet. These
results imply that while faculty members in the northeast
region were hardly satisfied with administrative policies,
handed down several steps to them by the Ministry of
Education, their feelings toward their supervisors who
enforced the policies were not as critical as those of the
administrative policies per se. By determining the above
results, faculty members in the present study rendered their
level of satisfaction for each of the two facets in the
opposite order. If there were possible latent dis-
140
satisfaction inhibiting their feelings, faculty members in
Vatthaisong's study would put more blame on administrative
policies than on supervisors whereas, in this study, they
would blame their supervisors rather than blame
administrative policies.
3. While the present study shows that one of the major
sources of satisfaction for faculty members included working
conditions, Vatthaisong's study in a different region showed
that working conditions provided the least satisfaction.
This implies that teachers perceived working conditions at
teachers colleges in northeast Thailand were not as good as
those at non-metropolitan teachers colleges in central
Thailand.
4. Findings on the level of satisfaction indicate that
faculty members in Vatthaisong's study were satisfied with
and enjoyed teaching as a task designed for their
responsibility, with which they were also satisfied.
Faculty members in the present study were satisfied with
their responsibility as well but did not indicate their
preference for teaching as faculty members in Vatthaisong's
study did. Generally speaking, faculty members in
Vatthaisong's study seemed to give meanings to teaching and
responsibility in a different way from ones given by those
in the present study. The former could say that teaching
was their major responsibility. On the other hand, the
141
latter could say that they were satisfied with their
responsibility but that their major preference in their area
of responsibility was not teaching per se.
5. The finding that faculty members with salary
classification 3 were more satisfied in achievement than
those who had salary classification 4 (usually higher
salary) contributes an implication. Those faculty members
who are at salary classification 3 are those who are usually
younger, have a bachelor's degree and have recently entered
their profession at the teachers college. It is possible
that they are proud and feel it an honor to be able to teach
at the teachers college. They have struggled and have
overcome high competition to be selected as an instructor.
In general, rank classification 4 belongs to graduates with
a master's degree. The competition is not so severe for
this classification because! master's degree holders are not
so plentiful as bachelor's degree holders in Thailand. From
this speculation, it is feasible that faculty members with
salary classification 3 were more satisfied in their
achievement than those with salary classification 4. While
those with salary classification 5 (usually promoted from
level 4) seemed to be less satisfied than those in
classification 3 and more satisfied than those in
classification 4, the results did not show any statistical
significance.
142
In addition, the faculty members who had salary
classification 4 might set their personal goal attainment
higher than the other group. Their students' growth and
success might reach below their criteria. All the possi-
bilities above may attribute to less satisfaction among
faculty members with salary classification 4.
6. One of the research results in this study shows
that instructors were more satisfied with working conditions
than were administrators. This result suggests that ad-
ministrators may be overworked because they have two roles--
being an instructor and administrator simultaneously. Work
schedules, number of classes, number of hours both in office
and classes and other conditions seemed to be heavy for
them.
7. The finding which shows that female faculty members
were more satisfied with interpersonal relations than male
faculty members implies that female faculty members enjoyed
relationships with their students and colleagues, both
personal and job-related, more than did the male faculty
members.
8. Results in this study show that the longer the
period of time male faculty members were engaged in their
profession, the more job satisfaction in growth and the work
itself would increase; this was opposite to the results
contributed by female faculty members. This implies that
143
female faculty members with under ten years of teaching
experience, who were usually younger than those with over
ten years of teaching experience, tended to have opportu-
nities to participate in in-service education and to further
their own study for a higher degree. They were involved in
seminars, conferences, workshops, etc., and tended to find
teaching enjoyable. They were possibly more active,
attractive, energetic and were developing themselves to be
ideal professionals. The satisfaction may not be true for
male faculty members who had less experience, but it may be
true for those with longer experience. Male faculty members
with over ten years of teaching experience may not yet be
old and the opportunities to grow in their professions are
still wide; this should contribute to satisfaction in the
teaching profession. Male faculty members with under ten
years of teaching experience seemed to like their teaching
profession, but need to gain growth and feel more
satisfaction in their teaching.
9. The nearly identical levels of overall job
satisfaction in both studies (over 77%, but somewhat
different in decimal points) implies that overall, faculty
members in different regions were likewise satisfied with
their jobs.
10. The findings show that some of the results of the
studies in which the same instrument was used are different.
144
The implication is that different environments in different
regions result in different satisfactions among the faculty
members who reside in those regions.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are divided into two
parts. The first part presents recommendations for
administrative practices. The second part presents
recommendations for further study.
Recommendations for Administrative Practices
The findings of this study are useful for governments,
top, middle, and immediate administrators or supervisors,
faculty members and other people involved in improving
administrative policy and fulfilling the needs of faculty
members at teachers colleges in Thailand.
1. It is recommended that the crucial areas in policy
and administration, salary, and supervision in both studies
be thoroughly examined. Faculty members" salaries at
northeast teachers colleges need careful attention. Faculty
members in the central non-metropolitan region need a better
image of supervision. Administrative leadership among
administrators under Thai bureaucratic structures is
essentially needed. Programs for development of
administrative leadership and skills for administrators
among and within teachers colleges should be held regularly.
145
In addition, administrators need to be fair and honest.
Faculty members in the northeast region also need better
supervision.
The slight satisfaction and the low level of
satisfaction with the policy and administration facet among
faculty members in the northeast region and the central non-
metropolitan region ,respectively, revealed the need for
improvement in this area. Improvement efforts should focus
on the following: individual faculty members should be
involved in making decisions; faculty members should be
informed about matters affecting them; administrative
policies and procedures should be made available to faculty;
policies should meet faculty needs, and policies and
procedures should be actually followed.
2. It is recommended that opportunities for increased
responsibility and growth in education both in in-service
and formal education should be made available to faculty,
especially those in classification 4.
It is recommended that those who are both
administrator and teacher coincidentally be given fewer
class responsibilities than those who teach only. This will
result in their having more time for course preparations and
for administrative work. This is a way to increase
administrators satisfaction in working conditions.
146
4. It is recommended that male faculty members with
under ten years of teaching experience and female faculty
members with over ten years of teaching experience be given
more involvement in seminars, conferences, workshops, in-
service education, and further study to earn a higher
degree. Without those incentives, teaching alone may not be
able to increase their satisfaction to the same level
attained by those male faculty members with over ten years
of teaching experience and female faculty members with under
ten years of teaching experience.
5. Even though faculty members in both studies seemed
to be satisfied with their jobs in several facets, the
frequency of their responses tended more toward slightly and
moderately satisfied rather than very satisfied. Based on
careful evaluation of the findings in both studies,
administrators should develop means for improving faculty
members' job satisfaction to the highest level.
Recommendations for Further Study
1. A study should be conducted to compare faculty job
satisfaction between faculty members at teachers colleges in
the metropolitan area and faculty members in non-
metropolitan areas.
2. Further studies should include the following
demographic classifications: academic ranks, size of the
institution, and areas of teaching*.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hansen, G.L. & Kramer, R.E. (1978). Iowa postsecondary vocation-technical teacher retention study. Community Junior College Research Quarterly, 2, 255-258.
Holdaway, E.A. (1978). Facet and overall satisfaction of teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly. 14 (1), 30-47. ~
Jariyavidyanont, S. (1979). Job satisfaction of Nida faculty members (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5353A. ~ ~ ~
Ramsey, J.K. (1982). Faculty perceptions of institutional quality and vitality. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 084)
Savage, R.M. (1968). A study of teacher satisfaction and attitudes: Causes and effects (Doctoral dissertation Auburn University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 3948A. ~~
Seegmiller, J.F. (1977). Job satisfaction of faculty and staff at the college of eastern Utah. Provo, Utah: Office of Institutional Research College of Eastern 489^' Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 139
Sorcinelli, M.D. (1978). Faculty attitudes at Indiana University School of Dentistry. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University School of Dentistry. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 282)
Vatthaisong, A. (1983). A study of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in teacher training institutions in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 468A.
Wickstrom, R.A. (1971). An investigation into job satisfaction among teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International. 32 . 1249A. ~
147
148
Winkler, L.D. (1982). Job satisfaction of university faculty in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 696A.
Wood, O.R. (1974). An analysis of faculty motivation to work in the North Carolina community college system (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 9 0 I A 7 ~
APPENDIX A
TABLES XXX AND XXXI
149
150
TABLE XXX
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS AT SIX NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES IN CENTRAL THAILAND,
DEFINED BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATIONS
„ . U 1 Col-* Col.2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col.5 Col. 6 Variable N % N % N % N % N % N %
Sex:
Male 25 58.1 25 59.5 29 67.4 34 70.8 19 51.4 14 35.0 Female 18 41.9 17 40.5 14 32.6 14 29.2 18 48.6 26 65.0
A y 6 *
1 2 , 3 0 0 , 0 2 4 , 7 1 2 , 1 0 1 2.5 26 to 35 10 23.3 8 19.0 6 14.0 23 47.9 13 35.1 12 30 0 36 to 45 29 67.4 26 61.9 27 62.8 23 47.9 20 54.1 20 50.0 46 or More 3 7.0 8 19.0 8 18.6 1 2.1 4 10.8 7 17 5
Degrees:
Bachelor s 13 30.2 13 31.0 19 44.2 23 47.9 16 43 2 22 55 0 Master's 0 0' v
or Higher 30 69.8 29 69.0 24 55.8 25 52.1 21 56.8 18 45.0 X 6 3X s or Teaching: 10 Years or Less 12 27.9 4 9.5 7 16.3 25 52.1 9 24.3 13 32.5
More Than
10 Yrs. 31 72.1 38 90.5 36 83.7 23 47.9 28 75.7 27 67.5 w e j l s r y
Levels: C 3 0 0.0 2 4,8 1 2.3 5 10.4 1 2.7 7 17.5 C4 10 23.3 4 9..5 5 11.6 14 29.2 5 13.5 5 12.5 C 5 3 3 76-7 36 85.7 37 86.0 29 60.4 31 83.8 28 70.0
Faculty Affilia-tions :
Education 17 39.5 13 31.0 14 32.6 13 27.1 10 27.0 8 20.0 Humanities 16 37.2 15 35.7 13 30.2 19 39.6 14 37.8 19 47 5 Sciences 10 23.3 14 33.3 16 37.2 16 33.3 13 35.1 13 32*5
Positions: [nstruct adminis-trator 28 65.1 23 54.8 29 67.4 33 68.8 17 45.9 21 52.5
Instructor 15 34.9 19 45.2 14 32.6 15 31.3 20 54.1 19 47 5 Admmis-
Note : College 1 = Chantha Buri Teachers College, College 2 = Nakhon Pathom Teachers College, College 3 = Nakhon Sawan Teachers College, College 4 = Karnchana Buri Teachers College, College 5 = Ayuthaya Teachers College, College 6 = Chachoengsao Teachers College.
151
Item No,
1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 2 0 . 21. 22 . 23. 24. 25. 26 . 27. 2 8 . 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
TABLE XXXI
RESPONSE FREQUENCY FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE BASED ON ITEMS
Dissatisfied Satisfied VD MD SD VD MS VS
2 12 34 99 98 8 16 18 53 91 70 5 11 16 56 117 51 2 3 8 37 98 99 8 1 7 35 116 82 12 3 8 43 110 84 5 0 5 28 106 107 7 3 12 41 111 78 8
17 28 47 83 70 8 1 11 48 106 77 10 3 18 54 102 70 6 5 14 48 106 73 7
11 12 37 100 82 11 2 10 21 79 118 23 2 11 26 91 98 25 2 8 33 104 98 8 1 12 37 115 80 8 0 6 25 114 102 6 3 12 20 103 106 9
10 14 59 107 60 3 14 18 63 104 49 5 6 22 67 100 53 5 9 12 46 100 75 11
10 28 57 107 46 5 8 28 56 105 52 4 6 31 71 101 41 3
10 31 60 116 34 2 11 29 75 90 47 1 6 10 32 122 73 10
13 7 43 109 72 9 4 7 32 113 88 9 8 18 42 105 70 10 5 16 58 108 62 4 8 8 50 113 70 4 5 5 35 109 88 11 1 11 35 93 97 16 1 11 31 111 89 10 2 9 33 124 78 7
152
TABLE XXXI (Continued)
Item No. Dissatisfied
39. 40. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.
Total Percentage Total Average Percentage 68.
Percentage Average
593 3.5
1191 7.0
29.8 3 7
1.2 2.8 2 2 . 2
3277 19.3
46 18.2
VD MD SD SS MS VS
13 17 55 103 59 6 9 21 53 114 51 5
22 46 55 89 38 3 12 20 47 105 63 6 9 22 58 94 63 7 8 16 61 103 59 6
21 20 81 86 41 4 24 25 59 86 50 9 22 31 57 88 46 9 9 22 51 101 63 7
12 30 56 105 45 5 15 32 72 81 49 4 19 33 63 88 44 6 26 21 47 100 52 7 20 30 57 91 51 4 29 26 77 71 40 10 23 34 59 90 39 8 3 16 54 110 61 9 5 11 68 104 55 10 2 12 52 112 68 7 1 8 28 99 103 14 3 10 40 123 65 12 0 13 41 119 70 10 5 15 52 107 73 1
18 24 52 107 49 3 19 26 65 91 47 5 2 14 43 126 60 8 2 20 43 107 75 6
6879 4514 40.6 26.6
497 2.9
70.1 124 63 10
49.0 24.9 4.0 77.9
MD SS VS
Note: n - 253. VD = Very Dissatisfied, oderately Dissatisfied, SD = Slightly Dissatisfied,
Slightly Satisfied, MS = Moderately Satisfied Very Satisfied. *
APPENDIX B
INSTRUMENT
153
154
JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS AT NON-METROPOLITAN TEACHERS COLLEGES
IN CENTRAL THAILAND
Part I
Instructions
Please respond to each item by checking the appropriate alternative that best describes or applies to you.
1. Your sex:
(a) Male
(b) Female
2. Your age:
(a) 25 years or less
(b) 26-35 years
(c) 36-45 years
(d) 46 and over
3. Your highest level of education:
(a) Bachelor's degree
(b) Master's degree or higher
4. Years of your teaching experience at college level:
(a) 10 years or less
(b) More than 10 years
5. Your salary level:
(a) C3
(b) C4
(c) C5
155
6. Your faculty you belong to:
(a) Faculty of education
(b) Faculty of humanities and social sciences
(c) Faculty of sciences
7. Your work nature:
(a) Teaching only
(b) Both teaching and administering
Part II
Instructions
For each of the following items, circle the response which best represents your level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Scale: 1 = Very dissatisfied
2 = Moderately dissatisfied
3 = Slightly dissatisfied
4 = Slightly satisfied
5 = Moderately satisfied
6 = Very satisfied
ACHIEVEMENT
1. The actual achievement of work-related goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. The immediate results from your work. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. The actual adoption of practices which
you recommend. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Personal goal attainment. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Students follow the practices being taught. 1 2 3 4 5 6
156
6. Observing students' growth and success over a period of time. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. The extent to which you are able objectively to evaluate your
accomplishment. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Growth 8. Opportunities for increased
responsibility in education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Opportunities provided for growth in education compared with growth in other fields. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Participation in in-service education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Types and levels of in-service education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. Opportunities to grow professionally through formal education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Opportunities to attend professional conferences, workshops, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
14. Friendliness of your co-corkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Cooperation from faculty in your department. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Cooperation from faculty outside your department. 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. Faculty-student relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Professional relationships on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
19. Personal relationships on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
20. Overall institutional relations including faculty, students, and staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6
157
21. Your involvement in making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. The extent to which you are informed about matters affecting you. 1 2 3 4 5 6
23. The procedures used to select faculty for promotion to positions such as department chairman. 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. The extent to which administrative policies and procedures are made available to the faculty. 1 2 3 4 5 6
25. The administrative procedures used to carry out the educational program. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. The extent to which administrative policies and procedures are actually followed. 1 2 3 4 5 6
27. The extent to which the policies meet faculty needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
28. The educational philosophy which prevails in your institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6
RECOGNITION
29. Recognition of your accomplishments by co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. Recognition of your accomplishments by superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
31. Your recognition compared to that of your co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. The recognition you get from the administration for your ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Publicity given to your work and activities.
RESPONSIBILITY
34. The authority you have to get the job done.
35. The total amount of responsibility
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
158
you have. 1 2 3 4 5 6
36. Your responsibilities compared with
those of your co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Committee responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
38. Responsibilities outside your major areas of interest. 1 2 3 4 5 6
SALARY
39. The method used to determine your salary. 1 2 3 4 5 6
40. The range of salaries paid to instructors in your institution. 1 2 3 4 5 6
41. The top salary available to instructors compared to similar positions in other fields. 1 2 3 4 5 6
42. Your salary compared to that of people with similar training in other professions. 1 2 3 4 5 6
43. The amount of your salary. 1 2 3 4 5 6
44. The earning potential of the faculty compared to that of the administration. 1 2 3 4 5 6
SUPERVISION
45. The level of understanding that your superiors and you have of each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6
46. On-the-job supervision given by your superior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
47. Competence of your superior to give leadership. 1 2 3 4 5 6
48. Personal encouragement given by your superior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
49. The willingness of your superior to delegate authority. 1 2 3 4 5 6
50. Authority delegated compared to duties
delegated.
159
1 2 3 4 5 6
51. Counsel and guidance given by your superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
52. The initiation of innovations by your
superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
53. The fairness of your superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
54. The sensitivity of your superiors
to your needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
55. The consistency of your superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 6
56. Specific on-the-job training offered by your superior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
THE WORK ITSELF
57. Work and association with college-age students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
58. The interesting and challenging aspects of teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6
59. The general type of work you do. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
60. Your level of enthusiasm about teaching.
WORKING CONDITIONS
61. The number of classes or groups for which you are responsible. 1 2 3 4 5 6
62. The number of hours you work each week. 1 2 3 4 5 6
63. Your work schedule compared to that of similar positions an other fields. 1 2 3 4 5 6
64. Your office facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
65. The adequacy of instructional equipment.
66. The number of course preparations required. 1 2 3 4 5 6
160
67. Your work schedule compared to that of your co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
68. Consider all aspects of your job as an instructor and indicate your overall level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. 1 2 3 4 5 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
161
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 437-445.
Ageel, H.A. (1983). Job satisfaction of staff members of Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2836A.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
Balazadeh, G. (1982). A comparative study of motivation to work and job satisfaction between male and female faculty members at Midwestern Regional University (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4313A.
Benoit, S.S. (1977). Job satisfaction among faculty women in higher education in the state universities of Louisiana (Doctoral dissertation. The Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International. 37. 6969A. —
Berman, M.R. (1980). Variables associated with role conflict between career and family. Atlanta, GA: American Personnel and Guidance Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 192 188)
Bess, J.L. (1981). Intrinsic satisfactions from academic versus other professional work: A comparative analysis. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203 805)
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XV~! ~
162
163
Division of Planning, Department of Teacher Education, Ministry of Education (1984). The education statistics 1983. Bangkok: Ministry of Education. ~ ~
Dunn, J.D., & Stephens, E.C. (1972). Management of personnel: Manpower management and organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Evans, V., Johnson, D., & Ramsey, J.P. (1983). Differences in job satisfaction of athletic coaches in revenue and florc—ysvsnue sports. Minneapolis, MN: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 357)
Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill,Inc.
Fitzgerald, T.H. (1971). Why motivation theory doesn't work. Harvard Business Review, 49, 37-44.
French, J.R.P., Kay, E., & Meyer, H.H. (1966). Participation and the appraisal system. Human Relations, 19, 3-19.
Fuchs, R. G., & Lovano-Kerr, J. (1981). Professional development and quality of life: A comparative study of male/female non-tenured faculty. Los Angeles, CA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 202 416)
Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L.L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 2. 237-257.
Gall, L.A., & Vogel, F.X. (1981). Attitudes of university faculty toward aging and retirement. Chicago, Illinois. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No ED 208 780)
Gannon, M.J. (1979). Organizational behavior: A managerial and organizational perspective. Boston: Brown and Company.
Gran, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 53, 1-25.
164
Grahn, J. et al. (1981). General college job satisfaction survey, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 716)
Griffin, M.E. (1983). Relationships between perceptions of collective bargaining, management style, and job satisfaction of mid-level administrators in Minnesota's community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3470A.
Habecker, E.B. (1981). A systematic approach to the study benefits and detriments of tenure in American higher
education: An analysis of the evidence. Huntington, IN: Huntington College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 208)
Hansen, G.L., & Kramer, R.E. (1978). Iowa postsecondary vocation-technical teacher retention study. Community Junior College Research Quarterly, 2, 255-258.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. (1979). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
Heneman III, H.G. (1980). Personnel/human resource management. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, inc.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World. ~~
Herzburg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hill, M.D. (1982). Faculty sex composition and job satisfaction among academic women. New York, NY: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 215 632)
Hill, M.D. (1982). Variations in job satisfaction among higher education faculty in unionized and nonunionized institutions in Pennsylvania. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 11, 165-180.
Hill, M.D. (1983). Some factors affecting the job satisfaction of academic women. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC* Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 297)
165
Hinkle, D.E. (1979). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Holdaway, E.A. (1978). Facet and overall satisfaction of teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14 (1), 30-47.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
Hoppock, R. (1975). Reminiscences and comments on job satisfaction. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 24, 107-108.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration, theory, research, and practice. New York: Random House.
Huck, S.W. (1974). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Hudson, L.R. (1982). The relationship between job satisfaction and selected factors of teaching workload (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4737A.
Ivancevich, J.M. (1974). Changes in performance in a management by objectives program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 563-574.
Jariyavidyanont, S. (1979). Job satisfaction of Nida faculty members (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5353A.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Klapachan, P. (1983). A study of the relationships between participation in the decision making process and job satisfaction among the faculty of a midwestern regional state university (Doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International. 44, 1000A.
Lawler, E.E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leon, J.S. (1974). An investigation of the applicability of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction among college and university professors (Doctoral dissertation,
166
University of Arkansas, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 5397A.
Levinson, H. (1973). Asinine attitudes toward motivation. Harvard Business Review, 51, 70-76.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. ~~~ ~ —
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand Mcnally College Publishing Company.
Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C.S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal-setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 135-139.
Lovano-Kerr, J., & Fuchs, R.G. (1982). Retention revisited: A follow-up study of female/male non-tenured faculty perceptions on retention, professional development and quality of life. New York, NY: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 824)
Lynch, B.P., & Verdin, J.A. (1983). Job satisfaction in libraries: Relationship of the work itself, age, sex, occupational group, tenure, supervisory level, career commitment, and library department. Library Quarterly, 53, 434-447.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mayo, G.E. (1970). The first inquiry. In H.F. Merrill (Ed.), Classics in Management (pp. 379-388). New York: American Management Association, Inc.
McGreal, T.L. (1969). An investigation of organizational variables affecting teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International. 29, 2067A. —
167
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mellinger, G.P. (1983). An investigation of academic job satisfaction/dissatisfaction in a small struggling liberal arts college (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 941A~ ~
Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D., & Locke, E.A. (1980). Maryland vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 25, 419-440.
Ministry of Education (1973). The Department of Teacher Training: Its work and organization. Bangkok, Thailand.
Morse, J.J., & Lorsch, L.W. (1970). Beyond theory y. Harvard Business Review, 48, 61-68.
Nie, N., Bent, D.H., & Hull, C.H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Openshaw, H. (1980). Job satisfaction determinants among faculty and administrators: An application of Herzberg s motivation—hygiene model in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41. 2470A. —
Pearson, D.A., & Seiler, R.E. (1983). Environmental satisfiers in academe. Higher Education, 12, 35-47.
Porter, L.W., & Lawler III, E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press.
Raia, A.P. (1966). A second look at management goals and controls. California Management Review, 8 (4), 49-58.
Ramsey, J.K. (1982). Faculty perceptions of institutional quality and vitality. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 084)
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
168
Ryan, J.J., Anderson, J.A., & Birchler, A.B. (1980). Student evaluation: The faculty responds. Research in Higher Education, 12, 317-333.
Saidian, M. (1981). A study of job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire as applied to selected male and female vocational and technical teachers of Esfahan, Iran (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4378A. ~
Savage, R.M. (1968). A study of teacher satisfaction and attitudes: Causes and effects (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 3948A. ~ ~~
Schmidt, G.L. (1976). Job satisfaction among secondary school administrators, Educational Administration Quarterly, 2, 68-86. ~~
Schwab, D.P., & Cummings, L.L. (1970). Theories of performance and satisfaction: A review. Industrial Relations, 9, 408-430.
Seegmiller, J.F. (1977). Job satisfaction of faculty and staff at the college of eastern Utah. Provo, Utah: Office of Institutional Research College of Eastern Utah. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 139 489) .
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1966). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 1235A.
Smith, P.C. (1974). The development of a method of measuring satisfaction: The Cornell studies. In E.A. Fleishman, & A.R. Bass (Eds.), Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology (pp. 272-289). Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company. ~
Sorcinelli, M.D. (1978). Faculty attitudes at Indiana University School of Dentistry. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University School of Dentistry. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 282)
169
SPSS Inc. (1983). SPSS-X; User's guide. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Steers, R.M. (1975). Task goal attributes, achievement, and supervisory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 392-403.
Sullivan, S.M. (1984). Job satisfaction of associate and assistant deans in accredited United States law schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2995A.
Suntrayuth, S. (1985). A comparison of present and preferred institutional goals among board members, administrators, and faculty of teacher colleges in Bangkok, Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3291A.
Terpstra, D.E., Olson, P.D., & Lockeman, B. (1982). The effects of MBO on levels of performance and satisfaction among university faculty. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 353-366.
Umstot, D.D., Bell, C.H., & Mitchell, T.R. (1976). Effects of job enrichment and productivity: Implications for job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (4), 379-394.
Vatthaisong, A. (1983). A study of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among faculty members in teacher training institutions in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 468A.
Vaughn, W.J., & Dunn, J.D. (1974). A study of job satisfaction in six university libraries. College & Research Libraries, 35, 163-177.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXII. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
170
Wickstrom, R.A. (1971). An investigation into job satisfaction among teachers (Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 1249A.
Willie, R., & Stecklein, J.E. (1982). A three decade comparison of college faculty characteristics, satisfactions, activities, and attitudes. Research in Higher Education, 16 (1), 81-83.
Winkler, L.D. (1982). Job satisfaction of university faculty in the United States (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 696A.
Wood, O.R. (1974). An analysis of faculty motivation to work in the North Carolina community college system (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 901A.
Wood, O.R. (1976). A research project: Measuring job satisfaction of the community college staff. Community College Review, 3 (3), 57-67.
Young, I.P. (1982). A multivariable study of administrator leadership behavior and custodian satisfaction. Planning & Changing, 13, 111-123.