Patterns of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Among UiTMT Academics

Rohana Yusoff, Rohayati Mat Ripin

Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences Univeristi Teknologi MARA Terengganu, West Malaysia

e-mail rohanayu@tganu.uitm.edu.my, rohayati@tganu.uitm.edu.my

Yunita Awang Faculty of Accountancy

Universiti Teknologi MARA e-mail yunita@tganu.uitm.edu.my

Abstract— Patterns of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu (UiTMT) academics for all job aspects and facilities were looked into. This paper describes the findings from a study conducted on 202 academics who have worked for at least one semester. Descriptive and mean analysis of data showed that academics were most satisfied with seeking knowledge to improve teaching skills, whereas they were very unsatisfied with printer facility and the amount of time allocated to carry out research.

Keywords-intrinsic; extrinsic; satisfaction; facility; academics

I. INTRODUCTION Over a decade ago, many studies have attempted to

identify sources of academic staff satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Academics’ satisfaction is associated with the feeling and attitude of the academics on their primary tasks of teaching and research [1]. Academic staff job satisfaction, commitment, and retention are crucial to effective academic institutions [2]. Factors found to contribute to the job satisfaction of academics included supervision or empowerment, interacting with students, time flexibility, the intellectual challenge of teaching, and ability to influence the work done. In contrast, academics viewed job dissatisfaction as principally contributed by work overload, lack of autonomy, and the work being done by the top management. Generally, studies have found variations in the job satisfaction levels of academics, depending on the individual and context in which that individual lives [3]. Job satisfaction reflects the degree to which the individual’s needs and desires are met and the extent to which this is perceived by the other employees. Staples and Higgins [4], as quoted by Fatma [1] stated that job satisfaction is generally perceived as: …the scope of the work and all the positive attitudes regarding the work environment. Job satisfaction has relevance to human health because of its relevance to the physical and emotional wellbeing of employees. In addition to its humanitarian value, job satisfaction appears to be extensively researched in a variety of organizations because of the implicit assumptions that job satisfaction is a potential determinant of productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. As such, it is of great importance for university administrators to identify the level of academic staff satisfaction and identify the dimensions of high dissatisfaction as a means of maintaining a stable working force [2].

The job expectations of a university’s academic staff have shifted in recent years and seem to be growing exponentially leading to a combination of increased job related stress for the academic staff, and decreasing levels of morale and job satisfaction [2]. The responsibilities of UiTMT academics today are no longer bonded to their teaching tasks only, but also to get involved with the students’ development activities, administration, International Standard Organization (ISO) activities, and lately, research and writing. While some academics are in the opinion that this is a usual phenomena and one needs to be open minded and versatile to handle these responsibilities, others have negative feelings and propose some organizational change. To date, though the overall performance of the UiTMT’s management in all sorts of activities and programs have been generally good, the importance of human factor in the organization, namely the job satisfaction of academics rather deserves more attention. This paper therefore aims to identify the patterns of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among UiTM Terengganu academics.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS The population for this study is 293 academics who have

worked for one or more semesters at UiTMT. This is a population survey, thus no sampling technique was applied. Questionnaires were distributed to every UiTMT academics at an academic meeting. Academics were given a pen each as a token to motivate them to answer the questionnaire. Those who did not attend the meeting were identified and given the questionnaire later. A percentage of about 69% (202 academics) responded and returned the questionnaires.

In view of the fact that job satisfaction is situational and

very much influenced by immediate and current events evolving around the workplace, the researchers decided to develop their own instrument for this study. The significant determinants of job satisfaction such as company and administrative policy, supervision and salary, interpersonal relations, working condition and work itself, achievement and recognition, and responsibility and advancement, found by other researchers [5, 6, 7, 8] were referred to as guidelines in designing the questions.

The process started with pooling related items from

literature reviews. To ensure content validity, a pilot survey was conducted on 30 academics to obtain their views on the questions drafted. They were allowed to comment and suggest

2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010), December 5 - 7, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4244-8986-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 1309

other questions which they think are relevant to the research objectives. The aim of this pilot survey is to validate the content of the instrument and to discover any question related to the study unintentionally ignored.

Using the results of the pilot survey, the questions were scrutinized by the researchers to make sure that they are applicable to the study and measurable by the respondents. The researchers also amended questions that may be ambiguous, double barreled, or too general to make them more specific and analyzable. The researchers created questions that cover all job varieties as an academic to tap possible differences between one respondent to the others. This is to ensure concurrent validity of the instrument that is the ability of an instrument to discriminate individuals who are known to be different. At the end of this stage, a set of questions which has gone through the first refining process has been developed.

Then, a second pilot survey was conducted to make sure

that there are no more issues left unattended. This time the questionnaires were given to several other academics to answer and comment. Again using the results of this second pilot survey, the researchers re-examined the questionnaire to make sure all the questions are applicable, measurable, analyzable, and satisfy all the research objectives. At this stage, the process of linking each question to analysis methods was carried out. In this way, the researchers hope to minimize the problems that may arise during the data analysis process.

Finally, the developed questionnaire consists of two

sections. Section A elicits demographic information while section B consists of questions that relate to the objectives of the study. Every question in section B uses a Likert scale of 1 to 7, where scale of 1 indicates strongly disagree and scale 7 indicates strongly agree. All questions use sentences in the affirmative form.

Descriptive and mean analyses were used to classify the

levels of academics’ job satisfaction for all items in the questionnaire.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The internal reliability of the instrument was investigated

using Cronbach’s Alpha. Results are shown in Table 1 below. Values between 0.768 and 0.962 indicate that all variables under each factor can be highly considered as measuring the same concept [9].

Tables II, III, and IV below exhibit the respondents’

profiles for this research. Most of the respondents were female academics (72.3%) while the rest are male. Most of them are married and aged below 39 years old. 140 academics had less than 10 years teaching experience, 108 at job grade of DM45/46 and most of the respondents earn less than RM4000 with master’s degree from local universities. Table V shows the distribution of academics for every faculty.

TABLE I. INTERNAL RELIABILITY

Factor Cronbach alpha Number of items under each factor

Relationship among fellow workers 0.919 5 Teaching 0.768 6 Research 0.799 5 Writing 0.832 3

Relationship with immediate boss 0.942 3 Performance evaluation (SKT) 0.962 3

Management-lecturer relationship 0.907 8

TABLE II. AGE AND MARITAL STATUS

Marital Status Age Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 and above

single 49 13 3 1 66 married 19 57 44 11 131

Total 68 70 47 12 197 TABLE III. JOB GRADE AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Teaching experience

DM 41

DM 45/46

DM 51/52

DM 53/54 others Total

<=3

4-9

10-15

16-20

21>

30 41 1 0 15 87

4 45 4 0 0 53

0 14 14 0 0 28

0 2 5 5 0 12

0 6 2 12 0 20

Total 34 108 26 17 14 200

TABLE IV. SALARY AND EDUCATION LEVEL

salary Highest Education qualification Total

Bachelor overseas

Bachelor Local

Master overseas

Master Local

PHD overseas

PHD Local

< 2000 1 20 0 4 0 0 25

2001-3000 0 13 7 42 0 0 62

3001-4000 0 0 7 50 0 0 57

4001-5000 0 0 6 15 1 1 23

5001-6000 0 0 5 6 0 0 11

>6000 0 0 10 6 1 3 20

Total 1 33 35 123 2 4 198

The research which this paper is based on was sponsored by the Research Management Institute of Universiti Teknologi MARA [600-RDC/SSP/DANA 5/3/Dsp (93/2008)0]

1310

TABLE V. NO. OF ACADEMICS PER FACULTY

The patterns of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among

UiTMT academics were investigated using the following classification of the mean score for each item in the questionnaire: i. A mean score of less than 3.5 (<3.5) is classified as ‘unsatisfied’. ii. A mean score between 3.5 to 4.5 is classified as

‘indifferent’. iii. A mean score between 4.5 to 5.5 is classified as

‘moderately satisfied’ iv. A mean score between 5.5 to 6 is classified as

‘satisfied’. v. A mean score of more than 6 is classified as ‘very

satisfied’ The above classification follows classification theory which provides principles to organize objects into groups according to their similarities and differences or their relationship to certain criterion. Items should not be shared by any two classes and all the classes must contain all the items under consideration. If items are classified by differences of quantity or differences of quality, it will establish ordered or ranked classes [10]. A cluster analysis was also conducted using Agglomerative hierarchical clustering with five number of clusters selected, Euclidean distance with Ward’s Procedure to generate clusters that minimize the squared Euclidean distance to the mean and standardized scores on the SPSS. Results presented for academic primary tasks and intrinsic factors and facility items below show that the clusters generated are comparable to the clusters built using classification theory. However there are a few items that are classified differently, for example ‘I am heavily involved in consulting/supervising’ is classified as ‘unsatisfied’ under cluster analysis whereas under classification theory, it is classified as ‘indifferent’. In finding

the solution for all the differences, the researchers considered other measures such as the standard deviation, median, and mode, as well as teaching environmental factor, both experienced and observed by the researchers themselves. Considering these measures and factor, classification theory gains advantage above cluster analysis because it is more acceptable as well as more explainable.

Classification for academic primary tasks and intrinsic factors (cluster analysis):

i. A mean score of 3.29 – 3.70 (2 items) is classified as ‘unsatisfied’.

ii. A mean score between 4.10 - 4.23 (2 items) is classified as ‘indifferent’.

iii. A mean score between 4.70 - 5.03 (10 items) is classified as ‘moderately satisfied’

iv. A mean score between 5.15 - 5.68 (11 items) is classified as ‘satisfied’.

v. A mean score of 6.23 (1 item) is classified as ‘very satisfied’

Classification for facility items (cluster analysis) :

i. A mean score of 2.6 – 3.67 (3 items) is classified as ‘unsatisfied’.

ii. A mean score between 4.10 - 4.42 (6 items) is classified as ‘indifferent’.

iii. A mean score between 4.66 - 5.01 (8 items) is classified as ‘moderately satisfied’

Table VI below shows five mean score classifications of 27 items on academic primary tasks and intrinsic factors while Table VII shows three mean score classifications of 17 items on facilities, both using classification theory.

TABLE VI. MEAN SCORE CLASSIFICATION

Faculty/Department Frequency Percent missing 3 1.5

Language 28 13.9

Computer Science 12 5.9

Office management 15 7.4

Law 3 1.5

Economy 6 3.0

Math/Stat 20 9.9

Engineering 20 9.9

Public Admin 7 3.5

CITU 9 4.5

Hotel 24 11.9

Business 29 14.4

Accounting 26 12.9

Total 202 100.0

Satisfied (mean 5.5-6.0) Items Mean Median Mode Std

dev. My colleagues are willing to share knowledge

5.68 6 6 0.99

My colleagues are ready to cooperate

5.63 6 6 0.92

I am satisfied with my effectiveness in teaching

5.54 6 6 0.90

Unsatisfied (<3.5) Items Mean Median Mode Std dev.

I have enough time to do research 3.29 3 3 1.56

Indifferent (3.5-4.5) Items Mean Median Mode Std dev

I am satisfied with my responsibility to do consultation/supervision

4.23 4 4 1.68

I find it easy to balance the activities for teaching, researching, consulting, and management work.

4.1 4 5 1.28

I am heavily involved in consulting/supervising

3.7 4 4 1.78

1311

TABLE VI (continued)

TABLE VI (continued)

TABLE VII. MEAN SCORE CLASSIFICATION(FACILITIES)

Moderately Satisfied (mean 4.5-5.5) Items Mean Median Mode Std dev.

My colleagues respect the honor of fellow workers

5.46 6 6 1.10

I enjoy seeking knowledge to improve quality of research

5.42 5.5 5 1.22

I feel comfortable asking questions about my workload

5.32 6 6 1.35

My colleagues are ready to share responsibilities

5.29 5 5 1.01

My colleagues acknowledge differences in opinion

5.24 5 6 1.10

I enjoy seeking knowledge to improve quality of writing

5.2 5 5 1.21

I am satisfied that research is also considered as one of UiTM academics’ products

5.19 5 5 1.32

I am satisfied with the ways conflict were solved

5.15 5 5 1.39

I am given enough opportunity to increase knowledge in my field of studies

5.03 5 6 1.27

Teaching loads (ATA) are fairly distributed

5.01 5 6 1.43

I am satisfied with the university’s practice in recognizing academics’ for their good work in teaching, research, writing and publication, consultancy, management, students’ activities, etc

4.98 5 5 1.22

I am satisfied with my responsibility in management work (all levels of management work including being members in any committee)

4.94 5 5 1.29

I have to do more in my job (teaching, research, consulting, management) than I want to

4.9 5 5 1.25

I am satisfied with my responsibility to do research

4.8 5 5 1.38

I am satisfied with my responsibility to write and publish

4.8 5 5 1.26

I am given enough training to improve teaching skills

4.78 5 5 1.24

I am satisfied with the number of students per class

4.73 5 5 1.6

I am given enough training to improve research skills

4.7 5 5 1.31

I am given enough training to improve writing skills

4.55 5 5 1.27

Very satisfied (mean >6)

Items Mean Median Mode Std dev

I enjoy seeking knowledge to improve teaching skills

6.23 6 7 0.77

Satisfaction with facilities Level Items Mean Median Mode Std

dev. Printer facility 2.6 2 1 1.69 Unsatisfied

Cafeteria facility 3.55 4 5 1.57

Indifferent/Acceptable

Parking facility 3.67 4 3 1.61

Kitchen facility 4.1 4 4 1.63

Computer facility 4.31 5 6 1.72

Electrical Lab 4.36 4 4 1.29

Non-TEC classrooms 4.39 5 5 1.33

Facsimile facility 4.39 5 5 1.53

Chemical lab facility 4.42 5 5 5

Academics’ office facility

4.66 5 5 1.45

Moderately satisfied

Academics’ restroom facility

4.79 5 5 1.19

Photostat facility 4.88 5 5 1.37

Computer Lab facility

4.91 5 5 1.22

Language Lab facility

4.92 5 5 1.27

Telephone facility 5.01 5 6 1.42

Library facility 5.13 5 5 1.27

TEC/semi TEC classrooms

5.18 5 5 1.2

1312

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ‘I have enough time to do research’ is the only item with

the lowest (unsatisfied) mean score. This reflects the academics’ unhappiness that they do not have enough time to do research along with their basic tasks of teaching, writing, and publishing. The value of the standard deviation is quite big indicating that there are academics who are really unhappy with the amount of time allocated for research purposes. This fact is strengthened by the mean score of only 4.1 (std dev. 1.28) for the item ‘I find it easy to balance the activities for teaching, researching, consulting, and management work’. However they like to seek knowledge to improve quality of research and they are moderately satisfied that research is also considered as one of UiTM academics’ products.

Academics are moderately satisfied that it is their responsibility to do research and they are also moderately satisfied with the amount of training they received to improve their research skills (I am given enough training to improve research skills mean score 4.7, std dev.1.31).

Being a branch campus situated in a small urban area, academics have lesser opportunities to do consulting activities, what more with only a few experts in the campus. This is supported by the mean score of 3.7 (std. dev.1.78) for the item ‘I am heavily involved in consulting/supervising’. Furthermore academics indicated that they do not enjoy the responsibility to do consultation/supervision.

Academics in UiTMT have pleasant colleagues to work with. Academics respect the honor of fellow workers, they feel comfortable asking questions about their workload and they are ready to share responsibilities among them. Academics also acknowledge differences in opinion and they are satisfied with the ways conflicts were solved.

Naturally, being academics who love to continuously enhance knowledge, they really enjoy seeking knowledge to improve their teaching skills. They were also given enough opportunity to increase knowledge in their field of studies and they enjoy seeking knowledge to improve quality of writing. However, they were moderately satisfied with their responsibility to write and publish, and were also moderately satisfied with the amount of training they received to improve their writing skills.

Academics are moderately satisfied with the fairness of the distribution of teaching loads (ATA). They are moderately satisfied with the amount of training they received to improve teaching skills, as well as with the number of students per class.

Academics are also moderately satisfied with the university’s practice in recognizing academics’ for their good work in teaching, research, writing and publication, consultancy, management, students’ activities, etc. and responsibility in management work (all levels of management work including being members in any committee). However, they do not feel that they have to do more in their job (teaching, research, consulting, and management) than they want to.

The standard of facilities available for academics and their conditions are considered as the external or extrinsic factors

that contribute to the academics’ job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is influenced by intrinsic factors (personal achievement, sense of accomplishment, and prestige) and extrinsic factors (pay and benefits, working conditions, and resources) [11]. Winstead et al. [12] and Hui and Yee [13] found that facilities provided by the university, which is considered as the extrinsic factor do play an important role in academics’ satisfaction in performing their primary function as teachers and researchers. Similarly, Tietjen and Myers [14] pointed out teaching, research, and facilities are crucial factors that exist in the universities.

From the overall results, academics perceive that facilities at UiTMT as average, with room for improvement. Academics were most unsatisfied with the printing facility available for their use. Cafeteria facility, parking facility, kitchen facility, computer facility, electrical lab, non-TEC classrooms, facsimile facility, and chemical lab facility, were all considered acceptable by the academics who use them. Other facilities such as academics’ office facility, academics’ restroom facility, photostat facility, computer lab facility, language lab facility, telephone facility, TEC/semi TEC classrooms, and library facility were in better standard and condition since academics rated them as moderately satisfied.

As a recommendation, the university should provide and maintain appropriate facilities to enable teaching and research be carried out efficiently and happily. As this research found that the academics were most dissatisfied with the amount of time allocated for research, the management should seriously reconsider the teaching workloads assigned to each academic. Alternatively, the management should hire tutors as teaching assistants to the academics. These tutors may help the academics in handling non-lecture sessions such as tutorials and laboratory works, as well as handling the continuous assessments process. A score of 4.98 (std dev=1.22) for satisfaction with the university’s practice in recognizing academics’ for their good work in teaching, research, writing and publication, consultancy, management, and students’ activities indicate that academics have quite varied levels of satisfaction with the current practice. This invites management’s sensitivity in handling difficult situations in order to sustain academics’ respect throughout their tenure. Academic staffs that have different levels of job satisfaction may require different management styles and motivational strategies for optimum organizational effectiveness [2]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The researchers would like to thank the university management and the academics for their support throughout the research process.

REFERENCES [1] Fatma Kusku, ‘Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of

academic and administrative staff in Turkey,’ Career Development International, vol. 8(70), pp. 347-356, 2003.

[2] Fauziah Nordin, “Levels of job satisfaction amongst Malaysian academic staff,” Asian Social Science, vol. 5(5), pp. 122-128, 2009.

[3] C. Cherniss, Beyond Burnout: Helping Teachers, Nurses, Therapists and Lawyers Recover from Stress and Disillusionment, Routledge, New York: NY, 1995.

1313

[4] D.S. Staples and C.A. Higgins, “A study of the impact of factor importance weightings on job satisfaction measures,” Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 13(2), pp. 211-32, 1998.

[5] T. Oshagbemi, “Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education,” Personnel Review, vol. 28 (1/2), pp. 108-123, 1999.

[6] T. Oshagbemi, “How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching, research and administration and management?” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 1(2), pp. 124-136, 2001.

[7] T. Oshagbemi, “The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organizational members,” The Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 12(8), pp. 511-519., 1997.

[8] A.D. Koustelios and K. Bagiatis, “The Employee satisfaction inventory (ESI): Development of a scale to measure satisfaction of Greek employees,” Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 57, pp. 469-76, 1997.

[9] J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 1978, pp. 245.

[10] Encyclopædia Britannica (2010, October 07). Classification theory. [Online].Available: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/120378/classification-theory

[11] A. A. Zaghlouh, M. F. Al-Hussaini, and N.K. Al-Bassam, “Intention to stay and nurses’ satisfaction dimension,” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare , vol.1, pp. 51–58, 2008.

[12] B. A. Winstead, V. J. Derlega, M. J. Montgomery and C. Pilkington, “The quality of friendship at work and job satisfaction,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, vol.12(2), pp. 199-125, 1995.

[13] C. H. Hui and C. Yee, “The impact of psychological collectivism and workgroup atmosphere on Chinese employees' job satisfaction,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 48(2), pp. 175-85, 1999.

[14] M. A. Tietjen and R. M. Myers, “Motivation and job satisfaction,” Management, vol. 36(4), pp. 226-231,1996.

1314