Structural equation models ofmanagement and decision-

making styles with jobsatisfaction of academic staff inMalaysian research university

Ismail Hussein AmzatFaculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and

Datuk Abdul Rahman IdrisDepartment of Educational Management, Planning & Policy,

University of Malaya, Bangsar, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effect of management and decision-makingstyles on the job satisfaction of academic staff in a Malaysian Research University.Design/methodology/approach – The sample consisted of 218 respondents. The instruments usedin the study were the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Decision Style Inventory.Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to determine the influence of decision-making styleand management style on the job satisfaction.Findings – The findings showed that the research university had adopted an analytical decision-making style. The hygiene factors were the predictors of job satisfaction as perceived by the academicstaff at the research university in Malaysia.Research limitations/implications – This research selected a top Malaysian research universityand small samples were selected from the whole population under consideration, thus, the findings canbe generalized as similar to other research universities. In addition, the university managementdetermines the decision-making style, and the job satisfaction of the academic staff is affected by thedecision-making style of the university.Originality/value – A contribution is made to the literature as the research reinforces the view thatthe management style and decision-making style can predict or affect the job satisfaction of theacademic staff.

Keywords Malaysia, Universities, Job satisfaction, Academic staff, Management style,Decision-making style

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction“The more workers who are happy and satisfied with their jobs, the higher theproductivity of the organization” has been the catchphrase of the industrialized world.Both the academic as well as non-academic staff are crucial elements of an educationalinstitution. Their satisfaction and motivation are considered as a primary requisite forany successful teaching learning process. This issue is a complex phenomenoninvolving various personal, institutional and social aspects. It is generally believed thatif the academic staff attain adequate freedom, autonomy and enough job satisfaction,they would be in a position to fulfil the educational objectives and national goals.Academic staff should be respected for their contribution in disseminating knowledge

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Received 17 December 2010Revised 29 July 201124 September 2011Accepted 5 October 2011

International Journal of EducationalManagementVol. 26 No. 7, 2012pp. 616-645r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-354XDOI 10.1108/09513541211263700

616

IJEM26,7

to students and the teaching ability to accomplish the goals and attain the desiredobjectives.

Looking into the job satisfaction aspect in relation to the psychological needs ofacademic staff, the existing theories of worker satisfaction are complementary to andinterrelated with the psychological theories of needs and values. Intrinsic sources ofsatisfaction are explained by the need theories, as was defined by Maslow (1954),whose study suggested general groups of human needs, which were arranged in thefollowing hierarchical order beginning with the most basic human needs: physical,security, love, self-esteem and self-actualization. Herzberg (1972) refined the needstheory by investigating the deficiencies in specific work environments resulting in theHygiene Motivation Theory.

Previously, involvement of the staff in decision making has long been a criticalconcern in organizational research and many authors and researchers have writtenpapers and conducted research on this issue (Bacharach et al., 1990; Barnard, 1938;March and Simon, 1958; Miller and Monge, 1986). In addition, employee participationhas been examined since Second World War, as a key determinant of suchorganizational outcomes and the facilitation of changes as well (Coch and French, 1948;Kanter, 1983; Bacharach et al., 1990). In another statement, the level of a superior’sinfluence over the subordinates (Gouldner, 1954; Tannenbaum, 1968) can cause stressand burnout (Bacharach et al., 1986; Rice and Schnider, 1994).

Research in educational settings has indicated that the organizer’s, administrator’sor principal’s personality, their method of working, the nature of interpersonalrelationships and administrative practices or behaviour are likely to be of someimportance in the differential performance of the academic staff of various universities(Khetarpal and Srivastava, 2000). Recent reform initiatives have focused on theautonomy of academic staff and their participation in decision making in universities.The private sector and research conducted in universities have identified theimportance of worker/academic staff autonomy. This autonomy leads to a sense ofownership and empowerment where workers aim to grow within their profession andseek increased responsibility commensurate with their status.

Accordingly, academic staff must have the means to make changes as well asbelieve that their efforts can make a difference (Short and Greer, 1993). In the 1980s,serious attention was given to the issue of enhancing the professionalism of academicstaff primarily by uplifting their participation in the decision making regarding theclassroom milieu and the university environment. The ability to make effectivedecisions is vital to the successful performance of university academic staff as awhole. Simon (1960) called the decision-making process as the “heart of executiveactivity”, which was supported by Duncan (1969), who also consideredthe decision-making process as one of the administrator’s common jobs to tackle.Nowadays, the reform of the educational setting has been proposed and numerousstructural changes and strategic government revisions that further underscore theneed to improve the process of decision-making skills have been called for.

2. Problem statementSpecifically, in the Malaysian educational institutional environment, the universitymanagement and decision styles have been reported to have a strong effect on the jobsatisfaction of lecturers, in addition, hygiene and motivators were found to be thefactors that led to the job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of teaching staff (Ismail andAbdul, 2011).

617

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Moreover, the universities are predominantly financed and managed by thegovernment through policies and guidelines (Razali and Nik, 1986 cited by Seindou,1999). Hence, it seems that the staff have been given a minimal role in the policy-making process and are somehow limited in their participation in the decision-makingprocess. In the context of the Malaysian research universities, many complaints havebeen received from the staff about being ignored and left out in the decision-makingactivity and expressing particular dissatisfaction with the university management aswell as its decision-making style. In one of the research universities, the academic staffcomplained at being left out of the deciion-making performance after corporatization.It was stated by Suthukar (1997) and Norali and Lehan that the staff were overlookedand excluded from consultative participation, and that the corporatization exercisewas carried out in a feudalistic manner.

In some of the Malaysian public and research universities, staff generally complainabout the university management and decision-making style for being exclusivelydirective and authoritative. In addition, after the corporatization process in someof these universities, the consequence has created a sense of hostility among thestaff as expressed through their complaints at being left out from the relevantparticipation.

Furthermore, the educational, or, more precisely, the university’s policies, havebeen politicized because of the high level of sponsorship given by the governmentto universities in terms of maintenance, development, advancement, renovation,students’ scholarship and so forth. This has been thought to decrease the university’sautonomy resulting in restricted administrative independence. Eventually, all decisionsrest with the government, and the academic staff are reduced to interpretingand applying the directives received (Razali and Nik, 1986).

In this light, the management should lead the staff towards achieving the setgoals towards maintenance of positive relationships with the staff. Universitymanagement and decision-making styles should be flexible and consultative in theirexecution so as to inculcate a sense of belonging among the staff. Rigidity andbureaucracy should be eliminated in the educational system because it might leadto the academic staff developing a sense of alienation, frustration and inferiority, whichcould create psychological problems or trauma through feelings of desertion,discrimination or isolation from the university system.

3. Purpose of the studyThis study has sought to investigate the effects of management and decision-makingstyles on the academic staff job satisfaction in one of the Malaysian researchuniversities by:

(1) investigating the level of job satisfaction and its indicators among theacademic staff; and

(2) exploring the types of management and decision-making styles applied by theuniversity management in the Malaysian research universities.

4. Theoretical frameworkThis research relies on certain theories, such as Likert’s management styles systemtheory, Herzberg’s job satisfaction theory and Rowe’s and Boulgaride’s decision-making styles theory. The application of these theories helps to understand the

618

IJEM26,7

organizational, management and human behaviour. According to Rensis, Likert’stheory of four management styles, managers should create a relationship with thesubordinates to achieve maximum profitability, good labour relations and higherproductivity and each organization must adapt to the use of human resources. Thesefour systems have varied widely in the management style.

Rowe’s decision styles help to understand the cognitive part of the human or theleader in making decisions as well as knowing things related to brain usage, which arerepresented in the way an individual approaches a problem. Herzberg’s motivators andhygiene factors help in the study of human behaviour and their thoughts within theworking climate. It explores the human psychological needs and deals with whatmotivates workers and what provides hygiene as well as employees’ well-being atwork. The next section of this paper will detail with the conceptual frameworkunderlying the study.

5. Conceptual framework (Figure 1)Based on the literature and theories, the researcher conceptualized the universitymanagement and decision-making style to have a direct effect on the academic staff jobsatisfaction.

6. Literature review6.1 Management style and job satisfactionA management style is defined as an overall method of leadership used by a manager(Mittler, 2002). It is the ability to use pertinent knowledge and methods of working withpeople. It includes an understanding of the general principles of “human behaviour”particularly those involved in an innovative skill approach to leadership and the use ofthis understanding in the day-to-day interaction with others in the work situation(Fenwick and Murlis, 1994).

Likert developed four systems of management, which describe the relationships,involvements and roles between the management and the subordinates in industrialsettings. Likert revised the systems to be applied to educational settings. Thus, thereview was initially intended to explain the roles of principals, students and teachers,and, finally, other individuals in academia were included, such as, superintendents,administrators and parents (Hall, 1972).

A positive and significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and themanagement/leadership style, in terms of motivation, communication, decision makingand the characteristics of the control process (Pezeshki et al., 2008).

The following are the four descriptions of the management styles based on Likert’stheory:

(1) Exploitive authoritative system: this management system stresses the obedienceof the employees to the decisions made by the managers and those administrators

Management

style

Decision-making

style

Job

satisfaction

Figure 1.The conceptual

framework for the study

619

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

that are in the top rank and status in the organization. In addition, with thismanagement system, the subordinates or followers are not allowed toparticipate in the decision making because the organization simply focuses oncompleting the job as well as resorting to threats as weapons in compellingthe employees to complete the specified job or task on time.

(2) Benevolent authoritative system: with this system, the top officers in themanagement make decisions. However, the workers or subordinates aresomehow motivated and rewarded if there is any constructive contributionfrom them without fear and threats. In addition, freedom of expression issometimes allowed from the subordinates to the managers but it is restricted toa certain extent to what the management wants to hear.

(3) Consultative system: with this type of management style, the subordinates aremotivated and rewarded and participation is allowed. Furthermore, themanagement uses their followers’ opinions and involvement but eventuallythe execution of the decisions is still made by the senior management. There isa greater flow of information (than in a benevolent authoritative system) fromthe subordinates to the management.

(4) Participative system: with this style, the management trusts and has completeconfidence in their employees. There is a good relationship and communicationtakes place between the management and the employees, and there isparticipation in the decision-making process. This style allows freedom ofexpression, teamwork, responsibility and a sense of belonging on the part ofthe workers while organizational goals are the contribution and rewards areused as the motivation.

However, numerous studies have taken place in investigating the factors that affect jobsatisfaction with job autonomy, working environment and management styles beinglisted amongst the factors (Zainudin et al., 2010). In addition, it was reported byLambert et al. (2008) and Adenike (2011) that the job satisfaction of academic staff canbe influenced or affected by the quality of the relationships between the academics andtheir supervisors, the quality of the physical environment in which they work and thedegree of fulfilment in their work.

Additionally, academic staff sometimes view their operational climates as not beingfriendly and open because of lack of contact with the authority, poor communicationand the presence of one-way communication between the educational managers andthe subordinates, lack of feedback on their performance, lack of reward and recognitionfor a job done well, inadequate resources to execute their jobs and lack of personalgrowth and development (Fajana, 2002; Adenike, 2011). Similarly, the same resultswere found in Fajana’s (2002) work on identifying a long range of factors that combinedto affect the individual level of satisfaction in which it was discovered that supervisionor leadership, participation, working conditions, social relationship, opportunitiesand achievement were the factors that managers or leaders used to elevate the workers’job satisfaction.

Furthermore, research done by Jaafar et al. (2006) using Herzberg’s two-factortheory identified both the hygiene and the motivator as the factors that highly affectedjob satisfaction (Zainudin et al., 2010). In addition, similar results were reported bySirin (2009) who found motivation as a factor for employers to utilize in increasing thejob satisfaction of the employees as well as for maintaining a conducive environment.

620

IJEM26,7

6.2 Decision-making styleFrom the psychological perspective, it is necessary to examine individual decisions inthe context of a set of needs, individual preferences and the values they seek.According to Rowe and Mason (1987), the decision style is a cognitive process thatrepresents the way an individual approaches a problem and uses information toformulate a decision (Rowe and Mason, 1987). Although correlation was foundbetween the decision-making style and the job satisfaction it does not prove a causality.Lower job satisfaction was found with the autocratic or directive decision-makingstyles, while a modest correlation was found between the consultative/behaviouralstyle and the job satisfaction (Shane et al., 2004).

In 1994, Rowe and Boulgarides made a tremendous contribution to the educationalbody of knowledge by inventing and theorizing decision-making styles from thepsychological perspectives. Four forces determine the decision-making style, accordingto Rowe:

. Directive – power and domination; clarity, not ambiguity; cognitive simplicity.

. Analytic – challenge-based achievement, cognitive complexity, systematic andslow decision making.

. Conceptual – achievements based on extrinsic rewards, such as, praise andrecognition; people oriented, creative and idealistic.

. Behavioural – cognitive simplicity, people orientation, compromising andgood communicators (Boulgarides and Cohen, 2001; Rowe and Davis, 1996;Rowe and Mason, 1987).

6.3 Job satisfactionAccording to Akpofure et al. (2006), job satisfaction is defined in respect of one’sfeelings towards one’s career or exact facets of the job or career, in relation toproductivity and job performance shown from the outcomes. Thus, it is a complexvariable, and, due to its complexity, it can be controlled through situationalcircumstances that surround the job and one’s dispositional characteristics (Sharmaand Ghosh, 2006).

In this sense, it can be defined as “the positive emotional response to the jobsituation resulting from attaining what the employee wants from the job” (Gurinderand Gursharan, 2010, p. 2). Hence, it is an attitude subjected to cognitive evaluationaffecting feelings (emotion), beliefs and behaviour (Weiss, 2002).

From the educational perspective, Zigarelli (1996) refers to the job satisfaction ofteaching staff as a single, general measure that is a statistically significant predictorof effective schools. In the findings of Fauziah and Anizah (2003), who conducteda study on academic staff in public universities in Malaysia, the academic staffreportedly had a collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980/1984) and had a moderate level ofjob satisfaction.

Another study conducted in Malaysia by Santhapparaj and Alam (2005) on the jobsatisfaction among the academic staff in private universities in Malaysia showed thatsalary, promotion, fringe benefits, working conditions and others were significantdeterminants of job satisfaction. In other findings of Solucis and Syed, salary,promotion and working conditions were positively related with job satisfaction.Furthermore, researchers have developed many theories related to the nature of jobsatisfaction. For example, Vroom (1964), stated that job satisfaction is negatively

621

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

related to the discrepancy between the individual needs and the extent to which the jobsupplies these needs. Porter and Lawler (1968) categorized the influences on jobsatisfaction into two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors.

According to these theorists, internal satisfactory factors are related to the workitself (such as feeling of independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory,self-esteem, feeling of control and other similar feelings obtained from work), whereasexternal satisfactory factors are not directly related to the work itself (such as goodrelationships with colleagues, high salary, good welfare and utilities).

The influences on job satisfaction can also be divided into work-related andemployee-related factors (Glisson and Durick, 1988). In relation to work hygieneand satisfaction, Herzberg contributed the two-factor theory in respect of humanrelations and motivation, as follows: hygiene theory and motivation.

The two-factor theory distinguishes between:

(1) Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility), which givepositive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as,recognition, achievement or personal growth.

(2) Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits), which donot give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from theirabsence. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects, such as,company policies, supervisory practices or wages/salary (Hackman andOldham, 1976).

6.4 Job dissatisfactionEmployees become dissatisfied with their jobs when their expectations are not met andwhen the working environment is not conductive. The resultant effects ofdissatisfaction can be in the form of reduction of productivity in the workforce,decrease in organizational commitment and devotion as well as an increase in thediscontinuation of the job (Santhapparaj et al., 2005; Payne and Morrison, 2002;Redfern, 2005; Denizer, 2008; Gellatly, 2005; Sagie, 2002; Adenike, 2011).

In addition, dissatisfaction affects the health conditions of the workers negatively,as reported by medical doctors, which can result in neuroses: insomnia, headache andemotional aberration as well as psychological stress and disappointment (Denizer,2008; Adenike, 2011).

In the academic sector, the issue of the teacher’s job dissatisfaction is worrisome, asargued by Zembylas (2004). Their research is concerned not only with teachers leavingthe teaching profession but also because the teachers’ dissatisfaction is associated withdecreasing their commitment, lack of productivity, reducing ability to meet studentneeds, which lead to psychological disorders, such as, absenteeism, study stress andtruancy (Day, 2002; Hargreaves, 1994, 1998; Van Houtte, 2006; Evdokia, 2009).

6.5 Factors leading to job satisfactionAs job satisfaction was defined as a feeling that someone or a worker has towards theircareer, this is linked to the emotional feeling and positive response towards their job.These aspects have been evidenced and theorized to have been affected by somefactors as stipulated by Herzberg and others and have been divided into two parts:motivators and hygiene or intrinsic, namely, achievement, recognition/promotion,work itself, responsibility, personal growth and extrinsic motivators, namely, salary,supervision, policy, management, peers, work condition and security and others,as was explained earlier and as stated above.

622

IJEM26,7

However, research and studies carried out around the world and across many yearshave differed between continents on major factors leading to job satisfaction. In somecontinents, hygiene factors were found to be the major problem affecting the workerjob satisfaction while in others, motivator factors were the common factors. In Judgeand Church (2000) and Saari and Judge (2004), their findings were both motivatorsand hygiene, namely, supervision, salary, co-workers, and so forth, whilstpromotion and work itself were reported to be part of the most important job facetsof satisfaction.

A positive relationship with co-workers tends to increase the job satisfaction inthe work force as DeVaney and Chen (2003) stated, and the relationship between theco-workers and their colleagues was a strong predictor for job satisfaction in theworking environment. In addition, the strong relationship between the co-workers andthe higher level of job satisfaction of the individuals was discussed by Crossmanand Abou-zaki (2003), and Saba (2011).

In terms of salary, the low salary of the workers has caused serious upheaval in the jobsatisfaction area globally. According to the many researchers and findings reported,a constructive relationship has constantly been found between salary and job satisfaction.It was identified by Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza (2000) that salary was a predictorfor work satisfaction as well as by Miller (1980), who stated that substantial rewardsfor workers trigger better job satisfaction and better performance (Saba, 2011).

Work salary has become one of the factors that leads to a low or high motivationand job satisfaction in the academic setting in developed countries around theworld (Dinham and Scott, 1998b, 2000; Scott et al. 2001, 2003; Van den Berg, 2002;Vandenberghe and Huberman, 1999, Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2006). A researchby Kyriacou et al. (2003) also reported that salary, workload and status are factors thatlead to the early decline of some teaching staff in the teaching profession (Darmodyand Smyth, 2010). This appealed to Tang et al. (2004) who argued that when a workerloves money, they appreciate the value and are satisfied when their salary is better.Similarly, according to Sloan (2002), a person who never has enough money wants tohave more money, as having money is considered to be the most important goal in life(Tan and Amna, 2011).

Regarding promotion, it was found to have a positive correlation with jobsatisfaction according to numerous researchers (Baloch, 2009). Thus, academic staffare reportedly satisfied when there are promotional opportunities and it was suggestedby Kosteas (2009) that academic staff are committed and motivated when they believeor envisage that there are promotions or receive promotions in a short period of time.Hence, this increased their morale, performance and job satisfaction, as reportedby Saba (2011) when she stated that the respondents of her study were satisfied withthe work itself, salary, working conditions, job security and co-workers. However,in her study, there were a significant number of teachers who were dissatisfied with theprocess of promotion in their jobs.

6.6 Job satisfaction across bordersIt has been proven worldwide that teachers are never satisfied with their jobs. Studiesconducted worldwide found that teachers have the highest level of work stress andare less satisfied with their jobs than any other professional group (Neves de Jesusand Lens, 2005). Similarly, a report by Van der Westhuizen and Smit (2001)stated that job dissatisfaction had been found in educational institutions worldwide(Ian, 2005).

623

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Comparing the intrinsic and the extrinsic motivations of Herzberg, a researchconducted by the International Teacher 2000 has shown interesting findings, whichindicate that teachers, worldwide, are more motivated by intrinsic motivators thanby extrinsic motivation or hygiene. This series of studies revealed that the teachers’greatest satisfaction concerns the issues related to the achievement of teachers inhelping their students improve their performance through their positive impact.In addition, they were intrinsically satisfied with experiencing recognition,responsibility, personal power and motivation.

Interestingly, the stated findings above have been remarkably consistent in the fourEnglish-speaking countries –Australia, England, New Zealand and the USA –wherethe project was implemented and research conducted concerning the eagerness ofworking with different people (Dinham and Scott, 2000, 2002; Scott et al., 2001), andmotivating children and young people to realize their potential, to experience successand to become responsible adults (Zembylas, 2004).

Europe. In the UK, it is evidenced that intrinsic motivation, such as job rank level,occupational level, job level and rank level, are the consistent predictors of jobsatisfaction for higher rank workers who seemed to be more satisfied with theirjobs as compared to the lower rank workers (Oshagbemi, 2003). In Oshagbemi’searlier study (1997) concerning the effects of rank on the job satisfaction of UKacademics, he discovered that overall job satisfaction became greater with rank level(Serife and Tulen, 2009). Similarly, a study by Shields and Ward (2001) on the jobsatisfaction of the highly educated in the health professions and nurses in the NationalHealth Service revealed that there was a strong impact due to promotion and trainingopportunities on job satisfaction compared to the workload or the salary (Keith andJohn, 2006).

In Ireland, 2,000 primary teachers were surveyed on job satisfaction andoccupational stress among primary schools and school principals by Darmody andSmyth, (2010), which showed that students’ behaviour and discipline, as well asparents’ involvement, were the main factors in respect of job satisfaction of theacademic staff or teachers, while unfavourable relationships between the staffmembers with the principals in the schools was the cause of their stress.

In Cyprus, the job satisfaction of the academic staff and the teachers was found tobe correlated with working with children, the growth and well-being of their students,and their contribution to the society. This confirms and supports other studies insimilar fields in developed countries (Zembylas, 2004).

In Scotland, similar findings were reported by Boreham et al. (2006) in a paperpresented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association.Five motivator factors or intrinsic factors were found to be related to the jobsatisfaction of the teaching staff, which, in descending order are:

(1) recognition by the pupils of their status as teachers;

(2) their working relationship with their departmental colleagues;

(3) support from their subject mentor;

(4) support from other colleagues in the department; and

(5) their relationship with pupils in the classroom.

While job dissatisfaction of the teaching staff in descending order is shown:

(1) the availability of permanent posts in their subject;

624

IJEM26,7

(2) pupil behaviour in the school;

(3) the balance between work and private life;

(4) their salary as a probationary teacher; and

(5) the availability of material resources for teaching the most dissatisfied factors.

Australia and New Zealand. In examining job satisfaction globally, the factors relating toteaching, students and promotion, achievement and teaching itself are deemed to be thesatisfactory factors for teachers. In relation to this, a PhD thesis by Campbell (2001) citedby Campbell and Flinders, (2004) in Queensland on 300 non-government primary andsecondary school teachers, found that schools and school leaders had acknowledged thatstudents’ success, improvement and achievement, encouraging supportive professionalrelations among colleagues, providing opportunities to mentor colleagues and to developprofessionally, particularly in the development of curriculum knowledge led to theteachers job satisfaction. In addition, it determined the occupational satisfaction ofthe teacher when there was a cultural promotion of students’ achievement, improvement,teacher accomplishment, recognition and strong relationship as well as a sense ofbelonging amongst the staff (Alan and Matthew, 2004).

In addition to this, the highest level of satisfaction was noted in relation to theteachers’ working relationships with their colleagues, and their working relationshipswith the parents/guardians in a study carried out by ACER with the assistance of theAustralian College of Educators, with 20,000 teachers and school leaders participatingin the study (McKenzie, 2007).

The USA. In the USA, 69.2 per cent of the teachers were satisfied with the issuesrelating to teaching in a research conducted by Tom (2007) on the job satisfaction in theUSA, which had ranked teachers in the sixth place in the job satisfaction category.Moreover, job dissatisfaction was found among the teaching staff on the issues relatingto the interpersonal relationships, policy/administration, salary, supervision/technicaland working conditions while some were slightly satisfied. In relation to gender, itfound that female teaching staff were consistently dissatisfied with the policy andadministration, supervision and the working conditions as compared to the maleteaching staff.

Similarly, Jaime and Jamie (1999) reported and concluded in their research doneamong the teachers in Ohio agriculture teaching staff that there was a relationshipbetween the achievement, advancement, recognition, responsibility with the work itselfand teaching staff job satisfaction. When applying Herzberg’s hygiene factors, it wasfound in Chicago and Washington, DC, that a problem relating to hygiene had shownthat school teaching staff in both states had lost working days or suffered adversehealth effects due to inadequate working conditions. In addition, overcrowding, qualityof air, noisy hallways, dirty restrooms and cafeterias, and insufficient teachingfacilities and materials were reported by the teaching staff as the causes of the jobdissatisfaction (Schneider, 2003; Andrea et al., 2008).

Asia. In Malaysia, recent research was conducted by Amzat and Idris (2011) on thejob satisfaction of lecturers in two top Malaysian universities. At university“A”, working condition was ranked as the top job satisfaction factor amongst theacademic staff, followed by relationship with the peers, the work itself andadvancement, while at university “B”, relationship with subordinates was ranked asthe top leading factor for job satisfaction, followed by relationship with the peers,advancement, the work itself and the responsibility.

625

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

In addition, in research done by Chimanikire et al. (2007) and Santhapparaj andAlam (2005) it was discovered that promotional opportunities, workload andrelationship with colleagues had a great effect on the job satisfaction of lecturers.Unfortunately, these findings seem to be inconsistent with the European studieswhere the teachers and workers were satisfied with the teaching profession. Thisdiscrepancy could most probably be due to the different socio-economic situationalcircumstances.

This is consistent with the findings on working with children, developing warmpersonal relationships with children, the intellectual challenge of teaching, autonomyand independence and having opportunities to try out new ideas (Day, 2002; Dinhamand Scott, 1998; Evans, 2001; Farber, 1982, Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2006;Scott and Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Zembylas, 2004; Evdokia, 2009). Hence, it wasreported that the majority of the participants opted initially and unselfishly for theEFL profession for intrinsic factors rather than extrinsic, such as, salary, benefits,promotion and status which were ranked as the least factors for choosing the teachingprofession (Evdokia, 2009).

In another research, by Noordin and Jusoff (2009), in some Malaysian universities,she discovered a moderate level of job satisfaction amongst the academic staff of theuniversity. In addition, she revealed again that the salary, status and age of academicstaff had a serious effect on their level of job satisfaction.

In Bangladesh, salary and other extrinsic factors seemed to cause the majorproblems and dissatisfaction, for example, in an empirical research carried out byShamima (2006) on the female teachers job satisfaction in Bangladesh at sixgovernment primary schools in which she discovered that the salary, academicqualification, career development or growth, supervision, management, workingenvironment and culture were the main factors affecting the job satisfaction ofboth the male and the female teachers.

Africa. In Nigeria, a research conducted by Adelabu (2005) on teacher motivationand incentives showed that generally teachers or teaching staff were de-motivated anddissatisfied with their living and working conditions because of the low salarycompared to other professionals with related irregularities, such as low status in thesociety, lack of promotion, lack of career advancement opportunities, poor workingenvironment and low allowances. In another study carried out by Akpofure et al. (2006)on the job satisfaction among educators in colleges in southern Nigeria, similarresults were obtained where educators were dissatisfied with their jobs, especially, interms of salary.

In South Africa, the overall job satisfaction was found to be low in a researchconducted by Ian Howard (2005), who examined the relationship between jobsatisfaction and the organizational commitment amongst high school teachers inWestern Cape. Hence, it was discovered that the majority of the teaching employeesof the sample selected were not satisfied with these factors relating to supervision,advancement and salary while they were satisfied with their co-workers. Moreover,another research conducted by Ian Howard (2005) in South Africa showed that asignificantly strong relationship occurred between salary and job satisfaction, betweenadvancement and job satisfaction, between co-workers and job satisfaction, andbetween the supervision and the job satisfaction.

In Zimbabwe, it was found by Chimanikire et al. (2007) that the majority of theacademic staff in the tertiary institutions were not satisfied with their jobs andteaching careers due to high overwhelming workload, inadequate salaries,

626

IJEM26,7

allowances and inability to provide loans for purchase of houses and cars (Zainudinet al., 2010).

6.7 SummaryWith the studies carried out around the world and research done around the globe,we discovered that the causes of job dissatisfaction were varied and differed acrosssome countries while being very similar in others (Cheti, 2006). For example,differences were found in the level of job satisfaction of teachers and academicstaff between the countries even within schools inside the countries themselves.According to Crossman and Harris (2006), the overall job satisfaction varied in UKaccording to the type of school, giving an example of private school teachershaving the highest satisfaction compared to foundation schools (Darmody and Smyth,2010).

In Europe, it is proven that workers in the academic and non academic sectors tendto be satisfied with the issues in relation to intrinsicness, such as achievement,the work itself, relationship with their students, promotion and other related issues.These factors are believed to be the highly significant factors that lead to jobsatisfaction in the European continent while it is the opposite in the USA, as wellas for the Asian and African continents where issues relating to both intrinsic andextrinsic factors are affected.

In light of this, the employers, leaders and managers are urged to use differentmethods with various factors to boost the morale of the employees that can adequatelyimprove their job satisfaction.

7. Methodology7.1 Location of the study and populationThis study was conducted on one research university in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.It only focused on the academic staff at the research university. The respondentstaff were selected by the faculty or department and the sample size taken from eachfaculty was considered as representative. The population of this study comprised allthe academic staff from all the faculties at this particular research university (maincampus) listed in the 2008/2009 academic year. The educational level of the sample isas shown in Table I.

Object N % Total

Population 2,443 100 2,443Male 1,760 72.04 1,760Female 1,683 68.89 1,683Academic levelProfessor 175 7.16 175Associate professor 300 12.27 300Assistant professor/Dr 1,800 73.67 1,800Lecturer 187 7.65 187Teacher – – –

Source: Human Resource Division (HRD, 2007)

Table I.Academic staff population

at research university

627

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

8. Research instrument8.1 Job satisfactionIn this study, the research adopted the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ)with as light modification to suit the research objects and situation in the Malaysianenvironment, such as replacing the word “teacher” with “lecturer” and deleting somesentences that were deemed unsuitable in the Malaysian context. Teacher jobsatisfaction, as defined by Lester (1982), is the extent to which a teacher perceivesand values various factors, such as evaluation, collegiality, responsibility andrecognition. Lester developed the TJSQ specifically for use in various educationalsettings. The TJSQ 73 incorporated 66 items in nine subscales, which were categorizedas supervision, colleagues, working conditions, salary, responsibility, work itself,advancement, security and recognition.

8.2 Decision-making stylesThe decision-making instrument in this study was based on the decision style modeldeveloped by Alan Rowe and Richard O. Mason (1987). A survey questionnaire wasemployed in this study. The decision style inventory developed by Rowe and Mason(1987) was applied to initially measure the decision styles of the managers of theFlorida State University main libraries to obtain descriptive data, such as, gender,age, ethnicity, educational level, educational major, current position and administrativeexperience.

8.3 Methods and statistical techniques used in previous studiesIndeed, remarkable efforts and advanced methods have been used, and robuststatistical analysis has been applied worldwide by the researchers in examiningwhether there is any relationship, difference and causal-effect of management,leadership and decision styles on workers’ job satisfaction in all working sectors. Theliterature review of the present study has proven that the majority of the research andworks done in investigating the factors that led to the job satisfaction in the academicand non-academic sectors were conducted quantitatively. Hence, it is stated in theliterature of this study that most of the studies relating to employees’ performance orled to organizational growth and development were performed using the surveymethod. In addition to this, the findings from the present literature have also shownthat different types of statistical analyses were employed to carry out the results. Thus,some analyses applied the ANOVA and t-test to identify the differences between malesand females in terms of job satisfaction, while some analyses calculated the means toknow the highest factor means. Other analyses used the correlation tests to determinewhether there was any relationship between the management and job satisfaction,and some analyses explored the leading factors among the job satisfaction factors byusing the principle component analysis (PCA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).In addition, other analyses applied regression and the structural equation model (SEM)to determine whether there was a direct effect of decision, management, leadershipstyles on staff satisfaction, or hygiene and motivators on the staff performance as wellas the academic staffs’ intention to stay within the teaching profession or quit.

9. Data analysis9.1 Statistical techniques used in this studyIn relation to the previous works and early literature, this research has followed thesame steps by mainly using quantitative methods. For this reason, this study employed

628

IJEM26,7

exploratory factor analysis during the pilot study to confirm the factors loaded on theirrespective constructs and their reliabilities. During the actual study, the CFA or themeasurement model in the SEM was used to confirm the construct and reliabilityof the items; testing theory; loading factors and indicators, using the AMOSversion 18.

The concept of using SEM or path analysis is to show causal relations between twovariables, as SEM or path analysis is used and is adequate if the researcher isexamining causal relationships or intending to link multiple and observed indicators tounmeasured causes or trying to assess whether the overall model fitted the data(Bohrnstedt and Knoke, 1994; Hair et al., 1998).

Other techniques can be used figuratively for the same objective in terms ofcausality and item reliability measurement, such as path analysis, SEM), Rasch model,CFA and PCA, which are more robust and inherently stronger and more powerfulcompared to other univariate techniques, such as ANOVA, correlation and Cronbach’sa level based techniques. Precisely, those mentioned techniques could estimate orapproximately calculate the error.

10. Findings10.1 DemographicThe findings showed that (n¼ 218) of the academic staff participated in this research(n¼ 111) were male and (n¼ 107) were female. For the academic staff position, themajority of the participants were lecturers, followed by senior lecturers, assistantprofessors, associate professors and professors. The majority of these academic staffwere PhD holders with 11 years teaching experience and not holding anyadministrative post. The rest of the participants were Heads of Department andCoordinators. The majority of the participants were academic staff from the Facultyof Social Sciences, followed by the Faculty of Education, Engineering and others.Regarding the academic staff department, the majority of them were from theDepartment of Law, Languages and Sciences and Mathematics, Educational Maths &Science, Economics, Educational Management, Physical, Geology and others.

10.2 Measurement model of decision making (UM): proposed modelTo assess the fit of the measurement model, the analysis relied on a number ofdescriptive fit indices, as shown in Table II. The ten fit indices were used fordecision-making and management styles as well as motivators and hygiene factorsfor the job satisfaction, such as:

(1) the indices of comparative fit index of Bentler;

(2) adjusted goodness-of-fit index;

(3) goodness-of-fit index;

Variable w2 df CMIN/df GFI AGFI IFI TLI CFI NFI RMSEA

Decision making 133.15 46 2.89 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.070Management style 46.7 24 1.94 0.95 0.91 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.66Job satisfaction: motivators 9.76 4 2.44 0.98 0.93 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.95 0.82Job satisfaction: hygiene 88.57 39 2.27 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.77

Table II.Fit indices of decision-

making proposed modelfor the research university

629

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

(4) the normal fit index;

(5) the Tucker-Lewis index; and

(6) the incremental fit index.

All the indices were found to be 40.90. The w2 goodness-of-fit test statistic wascalculated, as were the degrees of freedom. All findings indicated that the model fittedthe data and all these indices supported the model on the decision making and themanagement styles as well as the job satisfaction.

10.2.1 Determining best indicator for decision-making styles

. DirectiveFigure 2 below presents the reliability and the loading of the Items according totheir indicators. Item 6 was the best indicator for directive decision-making stylewith the highest loading and reliability (R2¼ 54, y¼ 0.73), and Item 23 was thelowest (R2¼ 27, y¼ 0.34).

. AnalyticItem 18 was the best indicator for analytic decision-making style (R2¼ 96,y¼ 0.98), while Item 9 was the lowest (R2¼ 71, y¼ 0.84).

. ConceptualItem 26 was the best indicator for conceptual decision-making styles (R2¼ 55,y¼ 0.74) and Item 4 was the lowest (R2¼ 47, y¼ 0.68).

Measurement model of decision-making styles for research university

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

0.51

0.53

0.27

0.10

0.48

0.40

0.74

0.48

0.39

0.33

0.57

0.51

0.43

0.75

0.71

0.66

0.57

0.63

0.69

0.86

0.68

0.68

0.32

0.52

0.73

0.45

0.20

0.870.45

0.89

0.20

Behavioral

Conceptual

Analytic

Directive

CMIN/df=2.89

CFI=0.93

TLI=0.90

AGFI=0.90

GFI=0.90

NFI=0.90

IFI=0.93

Management decision style helpsme to be productive and do

the job in time.

Management looks for practicalresults from me.

Management is aggressive indealing with academic matters.

Management asks for bestsolution from the academic staff.

Management searches forfacts to make decision.

Management is good in solvingdifficult problems in the university.

Management decision-makingstyle helps me to achieve recognition

in my work.

Management decision-making styleencourages me to have independent action.

Management decisions are flexible.

Management makes decisions thatprovide a good working environment for me.

Management decision planningemphasizes on developing my careers.

Management is open-minded andpolite towards me.

Figure 2.Confirmatory factoranalysis of Rowe’sdecision-making stylestheory for the researchuniversity

630

IJEM26,7

. BehaviouralItem 11 was the best indicator for behavioural decision-making style(R2¼ 58, y¼ 76) while Item 22 was the lowest indicator for behavioural(R2¼ 45, y¼ 0.67).

10.2.2 Determining best predicator for decision-making styles. Figure 2 also displays thebest indicator for decision-making. Analytic was the best indicator for decision makingwith the highest item loading and reliability, followed by behavioural.

10.3 Determining best indicators for management styles

. Participative – decision makingItem 12 (decision making) was the best indicator for management andteamwork (R2¼ 51, y¼ 0.74) while Item 14 from (decision making) was thelowest (R2¼ 33, y¼ 57).

. Leadership-motivationItem 2 (leadership) was the best indicator for leadership-motivationfactor (R2¼ 53, y¼ 0.73) and the lowest was Item 17 (control) (R2¼ 29,y¼ 0.54).

. Control –autonomyItem 19 (Control 1) was the best indicator for control and autonomy (R2¼ 46,y¼ 0.68) while Item 18 (Control 2) was the lowest (R2¼ 26, y¼ 0.51).

10.3.1 Best predictor for management making styles. Under management styles,participative decision making was considered as the best indicator for managementstyles with the highest loading and reliability (R2¼ 55, y¼ 0.74) followed by leadershipmotivation (R2¼ 53, y¼ 0.73), as shown in Figure 3.

Measurement model of management styles for research university

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e14

e15

e16

0.30

0.16

0.17

0.74

0.64

0.570.67

0.67

0.73

0.54

0.68

0.70

0.59

0.67

0.59

0.51

0.68

0.85

0.88

0.88

0.51

0.55

0.41

0.33

0.46

0.45

0.53

0.29

0.46

0.48

0.35

0.45

0.35

0.26

0.46

CMIN/df=1.51�2=128.548Df=85GFI=0.93AGFI=0.90IFI=0.96TLI=0.95CFI=0.96NFA=0.90RMR=0.03RMSEA=0.04

How well does managementknow problems faced by staff?

At what level are decisions made?

Are staff involved in decisionsrelated to their work?

What does the decision-makingprocess contribute to motivation?

How are organizational goalsestablished?

How much confidence and trustdoes management show in staff?

How free do staff feel to talkto management about their job?

Where is responsibility felt forachieving organizational goals?

How much cooperative teamworkexists?

What is the usual direction ofinformationflow?

How concentrated areoversightand quality control functions?

How is downward communicationfrom management accepted?

How much covert resistance is thereto the goalof implementingevidence-basedpratices?

Is there an informal groupresisting the formal organization?

For what are prodctivity andperformance data used?

Participative-decision-making

Leadership-motivation

Control-autonomy

Figure 3.Confirmatory factoranalysis of Likert’s

management styles theoryfor the research university

631

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

10.4 Job satisfaction10.4.1 Determining best indicator for job satisfaction

. Motivator factorsItem 1 (advance) was the best indicator for motivator factors with the highestitem loading and reliability (R2¼ 65, y¼ 0.82), while Item 17 (personal growth)was the lowest (R2¼ 10, y¼�31) (Figure 4).

. Hygiene factors Item 24 (supervisor/management) was the best indicator forhygiene factor with the highest item loading and reliability (R2¼ 69, y¼ 0.83),while Item 28 (policy) was the lowest (R2¼ 17, y¼ 0.42) (Figure 5).

Measurement model of motivator factors for job satisfaction at research university

e1

e2

e4

e5

e7

0.31

0.68

0.33

0.38

0.20

0.10

0.31

0.45

0.61

0.58

0.82

�2=9.767CMINdf=2.442Df=4GFI=0.983AGFI=0.934RMR=0.049CFI=0.972TLI=0.930IFI=0.973NFI=0.955RMSEA=0.082

Motivators

Lecturing at the university doesnot provide me the chance to

develop new methods.

I am responsible for planningmy daily lessons.

Lecturing at the university providesan opportunity for promotion.

Lecturing at my universityis very interesting profession.

Being a lecturer at the universityprovides me with an opportunity

toadvance professionally.

Figure 4.Confirmatory factoranalysis of Herzberg’smotivators factors for jobsatisfaction theory

Measurement model of hygiene factors for job satisfaction at research university

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e11

e12

e13

0.25

0.19

0.52

0.58

0.51

0.61

0.17

0.46

0.35

0.57

0.21

0.58

0.690.83

0.76

0.46

0.76

0.59

0.68

0.55

0.45

0.54

0.42

0.78

0.71

0.76

0.72

�2=88.573CMINdf=2.271Df=39GFI=0.936AGFI=0.900CFI=0.937TLI=0.911IFI=0.938RMSEA=0.077

Hygiene 3

Hygiene 2

Hygiene 1

I get along well with mycolleagues at the university.

Working conditions at theuniversity are comfortable.

Lecturing at the universityprovides me the opportunityto help my students learn.

I like the staff with whomI work at my university.

I try to be aware of thepolicies of the university.

Lecturers’ income at my universityis adequate for normal expenses.

I am well paid as a lecturerin proportion to my ability.

Lecturing at the universityprovides me with financial security.

My immediate head offerssuggestions to improve my teaching.

Management provides assistancefor improving instruction.

Management is willing tolisten to suggestions.

Figure 5.Confirmatory factoranalysis of Herzberg’shygiene factors for jobsatisfaction theory

632

IJEM26,7

10.4.2 Determining best predictor for job satisfaction. Referring to Figure 5, it showsthat “Hygiene 3” was the best predictor for “job satisfaction” with the highest factorloading items (R2¼ 69, y¼ 0.83).

11. Confirming Herzberg’s theoryTable III presents the job satisfaction according to their ranking as perceived by theacademic staff at the University of Malaya. The table shows that, “advance” has beenranked as the first predictor for “Motivator” for job satisfaction with the highestloading and reliability followed by “achievement” while “personal growth” was rankedas the lowest.

Under hygiene, “supervisor” has been ranked as the first predictor for “hygiene”under job satisfaction with the highest loading and reliability followed by “peers”.These findings and rankings contradicted Herzberg’s ranking in predicting the firstpredictor for “motivators and hygiene” whereby “achievement” was ranked as thefirst motivator factor in Herzberg’s ranking and “status” was ranked first underhygiene factors. Moreover, in this study, 13 dimensions of Herzberg’s job satisfactiondimensions were confirmed and statistically significant while three dimensions (status,personal life, subordinate and recognition) were insignificant in this study. In general,“supervisor/management” was considered as the first predictor for job satisfaction.

12. Path analysis of decision-making styles and job satisfactionTo ascertain whether decision-making style has an effect on job satisfaction, it wasnecessary to perform the path analysis in order to infer their causalities. In this study,the path analysis was performed to prove whether there was a direct effect of thedecision-making styles of the University Management on the Job Satisfactionamong the academic staff. As the results of the path analysis were illustrated inFigure 6, “Decision-making styles” had a significant positive direct effect on the “jobsatisfaction” (b¼ 0.71, po0.01) and there was zero direct effect of the “managementstyle” on the “job satisfaction” (b¼ 0.01, po0.960), while it was indirectly affected bymediating the “decision-making styles” (b¼ 0.73, po0.01).

No. Indicators Loading and reliability

Motivator factors1 Advance 0.822 Achievement 0.613 Work itself 0.584 Responsibility 0.455 Personal growth 0.31Hygiene factors1 Supervisor 0.832 Peers 0.783 Work condition 0.763 Security 0.764 Peers 2 0.725 Salary 0.596 Supervision 0.467 Policy 0.42

Note: Personal life, status, recognition and subordinate (not significant)

Table III.Ranking indicators for

Herzberg’s theory of jobsatisfaction at research

university

633

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

13. SummaryThe results of the path analysis showed that the university decision-making styles hada direct effect and impact on the academic staff job satisfaction, where the effect couldeither be positive or negative. In addition, the results also showed that the universitymanagers’ or top administrators’ personal behaviour and thinking domain reflectedtheir decision-making style. Furthermore, the university management style did nothave any direct effect on the staff job satisfaction, however, it did have an indirect effectby mediating decision-making style, which showed that the management elements,such as leadership, communication, motivation, decisions, goals and control wereproperly used by the management and accepted by their academic staff. In addition, itdid not have any influence or effect on the academic staff job satisfaction and it onlyaffected and influenced the academic staff job satisfaction when it connected ormediated the decision-making style.

Additionally, other studies conducted showed that the management practices, suchas leadership, communication and decision-making process had a great impact on theemployees’ satisfaction in performing their job (Rahim, Shukor and Ilias, 2003). In sum,it can be concluded that the university management and decisions always have astrong impact on the academic staff job satisfaction. Thus, the decisions of themanagement are based on their cognitions, individualities and personalities.

14. JustificationThe dominance of the analytic decision-making style can be a good reason to controlthe situation in the Malaysian context whereby the Ministry is concerned with theuniversity ranking, especially, as this particular research university is the premierMalaysian University. In addition, public and research universities in Malaysia havebeen guided, supported and sponsored by the government in terms of providingteaching and learning materials and equipment to upgrade the higher institutionalsystem.

15. ImplicationsThe dominance of the analytic decision-making style of the university management,being task oriented and left-brain-users in making decisions as well as the

Structural equation model of management & decision-making styles and jobsatisfaction at rsearch university

0.71

0.67

0.57

0.59

0.72

0.74

0.79

0.84

0.82

0.75

0.73

0.77

0.850.86

0.89

0.54

0.71

0.00

0.49 0.74

0.98

0.55

0.97

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e11

e10

e8

e9

CMIN/df=1.94�2=46.7df=24GFI=0.95AGFI=0.91CFI=0.98TLI=0.97IFI=0.98NFI=0.96RMSEA=0.06

Participative-decision-making

Leadership-motivation

Control-autonomy

Directive

Analytic

Conceptual

Behavioral

Managementstyles

Decision-makingstyles

Jobsatisfaction

Motivators

Hygiene

Figure 6.Structural equationmodelling for influence ofmanagement and decision-making style on jobsatisfaction at the researchuniversity

634

IJEM26,7

governmental involvement in the policies can jeopardize the academic staff autonomy,cause dissatisfaction and academic staff attrition because the management thatpractices this style is considered to be high ambiguity tolerant, task focused andanalytically minded people. They rely heavily on abstractions and instrumentallogic, and tend to go over all aspects of a problem thoroughly. They also carefullyacquire and organize large amounts of data, consider every aspect of a given problemand acquire information by careful analysis. In contrast, this style can be beneficial inproducing quality works of the academic staff, discipline and excellence because ifthe management using this style presented a remedy, their solution is likely to becomprehensive, detailed and very thorough. They may also be innovative if theanalysis turns up noble information or supports noble reasoning. In fact, the successand/or failure of an organization may be directly linked to its leaders’ or management’sdecisions (Yukl, 1994).

Therefore, it is advisable for the Ministry to consider the involvement of theacademic staff in the decision-making process at the top level so that they can feel apart of the system, as, academically speaking, the university management shouldallow the decisions to be debated openly and transparently and allow the professionalsto speak out openly and honestly in the interest and for the benefit of the universityand the staff as a whole. Similarly, the academic staff should work hard and be engagedin doing research and publications and not rely solely on teaching. Thus, in this globalvillage where there are many challenges facing educational settings, such as theintervention of technology, parents and market expectations, with the pressure fromevery nation and government on higher institutions of learning to produce excellenthuman capital for national development, academic staff as well as teachers are forcedto improve their abilities and capabilities; to publish and conduct research to meet allthese expectations, not merely depending on teaching and old notes that will soonbecome obsolete and antiquated.

In this respect, the results have implications for positive and good management anddecision-making styles of the university management in Malaysia that can increasethe level of academic staff job satisfaction. It suggests that university managementbe participative in their decisions. Two-way communication is needed between themanagement and academic staff to create a conducive and friendly environment. Lastbut not least, the findings of the research have implications for the hygiene factors,which should be taken seriously, such as the relationship of the management orsupervisor with their subordinates, peers, working condition and security as well asopportunity for academic staff advancement and promotion. It suggests that futureresearch replicates the theory, model and tests, as huge samples are available includingthose from other universities as well as private universities in Malaysia.

16. Discussion and conclusionIt was found in Fauziah and Anizah (2003) that Malaysians were reported as having acollectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980/1984) and had a moderate level of job satisfactionin some public universities. These findings support the overwhelming results of thepresent research on the academic job satisfaction in public universities. The moderatesatisfaction of the academic staff in the previous studies and more thanmoderate satisfaction in the present one shows a serious effort by the governmentto change the level of academic staff job satisfaction from “moderate” to “highsatisfaction”.

635

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Furthermore, the relationship between the organizational climate and the employeejob satisfaction, using some of Herzberg’s job satisfaction factors, showed that,“Organizational climate assessments are accepted today as a vital component inhelping organizations to determine employees’ perceptions and feelings on their workgroups, leadership, work environment, decision-making, job satisfaction, etc. ofdepartments/faculties and the universities at large”. This finding also supported thepresent conclusion in which hygiene factors were the predictors for job satisfactionas perceived by the academic staff at the research university.

In terms of salary, the research of Santhapparaj and Alam (2005) on the jobsatisfaction among the academic staff in private Universities in Malaysia found thatsalary and promotion have a positive relationship with the job satisfaction of lecturers.This conclusion seemed to support the present findings in terms of the relationship ofpromotion with job satisfaction while being contradictory in terms of salary. Inaddition, the findings of Amzat and Idris (2011) indicated inconsistency, in as muchas the relationship with subordinates was ranked as the leading factor for jobsatisfaction while the advancement factor was ranked as the leading factor in thepresent research, even though it was supported in their other findings whereadvancement was ranked as the leading factor for job satisfaction under the motivatorfactors or intrinsic factors.

Chimanikire et al. (2007) noted that in Zimbabwe, the majority of the academic staffwere overwhelmed with workload, inadequate salaries and allowances as reported byZainudin et al. (2010); likewise a research by Kyriacou et al. (2003) also reported thatsalary, workload and status were factors that led to the decline of the number ofteaching staff early in the profession. While Darmody and Smyth (2010), as well asTang et al. (2004), and Sloan (2002), reported that salary and money were the leadingfactors for the workers’ job satisfaction (Tan and Amna, 2011). The findings of thesestudies are not consistent with the present findings in which salary was not the leadingfactor for the job satisfaction of academic staff.

Moreover, as was proven worldwide, especially in Asia and Africa, as well as in theUSA, salary has become one of the factors that leads to low motivation and jobsatisfaction in academic settings in developed countries around the world (Dinham andScott, 1998, 2000; Scott and Dinham, 2001; Van den Berg, 2002; Vandenberghe andHuberman, 1999). Thus, salary was also reported by Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza(2000) and Saba (2011) to have a constructive relationship with job satisfaction and is apredictor for work satisfaction. This relationship was not found in the present study inMalaysia between salary and job satisfaction, instead, advancement, relationshipwith peers and management were found to have positive relationships with the jobsatisfaction of academic staff.

Furthermore, the findings of the research conducted in South Africa by Ian Howard(2005) partially supported and are consistent with the present research in terms ofwork nature, supervision and advancement but contradictory in terms of salary.It was also partially supported and consistent with a research done in Nigeria byAdelabu (2005) where a relationship was found between career advancementand promotion with job satisfaction, however, it was inconsistent with thepresent research as well as a research by Akpofure et al. (2006) on job satisfactionamong educators in colleges of education in southern Nigeria, in terms of salary,status and allowances. In addition, it was consistent with the report andsuggestion from Baloch (2009) and Kosteas (2010) on promotion leading to jobsatisfaction of academic staff.

636

IJEM26,7

In comparing the present research findings with other Asian countries, a highdegree of consistency was found in terms of the extrinsic motivation; in Bangladesh, itwas found in a research by Shamima (2006) that extrinsic factors were the majordissatisfaction factors whereas career development, growth, supervision andmanagement were perceived by the staff to be the leading factors for jobsatisfaction. However, this was found to be inconsistent with the relationship tosalary. In addition, the present research findings seem to be strongly supported by theresearch of Tom (2007) in the USA on job satisfaction among the teaching staffconcerning issues related to interpersonal relationships, policy/administration,supervision/technical and working conditions and salary while some were slightlysatisfied.

Furthermore, the present research findings strongly support and are consistentwith (Day, 2002; Day et al., 2006; Dinham and Scott, 1998; Evans, 2001; Farber,1982, Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2006; Scott and Dinham, 2001; Shann, 1998;Zembylas, 2004; Evdokia, 2009) the findings in which academic staff seek advancementand development, such as working with children, developing warm personalrelationships with children, the intellectual challenges of teaching, autonomy andindependence, and having the opportunity to try out new ideas.

Similarly, it strongly supports and is consistent with Jaime and Jamie (1999) whoreported conclusively on relationships found between the achievement, advancement,recognition, responsibility and the work itself and job satisfaction of teaching staff, andalso from a research conducted by Campbell and Flinders (2004) in Queensland interms of promotion, achievement, improvement, teacher accomplishment, recognitionand developing a strong relationship as well as inculcating a sense of belongingamongst the staff. Correspondingly, it supports a research on job satisfaction in theUK by Shields and Ward (2001) in which the impact of promotion and trainingopportunities were found on job satisfaction as against the workload or salary (Keithand John, 2006).

Looking into the relationships between job satisfaction and the management orsupervisor and teaching staff development, the present research found it to besupportive of a research in Scotland by Nick et al. (2006) in which five motivatorfactors or intrinsic factors were found to have relationships with the teaching staff,namely:

(1) recognition;

(2) relationship with their departmental colleagues;

(3) support from their subject mentor;

(4) support from other colleagues in the department; and

(5) their relationship with pupils in the classroom.

In addition, the present research findings seem to be consistent with a researchrecently done in Ireland by Darmody and Smyth (2010) in which the relationships withstaff members and the principal in the school were the causes of stress in their workingenvironment.

This shows that salary, promotion, fringe benefits, working conditions and otherrelated factors were significant determinants of job satisfaction. In addition, the resultsof their research show that salary, promotion and working condition are positivelyrelated to job satisfaction. The results of their research are similar to the results of this

637

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

study in terms of “working conditions” but contradictory in terms of “salary”, whereby“salary” was not the first but the last predictor of job satisfaction in this study.However, it is very interesting to find salary as the top leading factor and predictorof job satisfaction in Asia, Africa and the USA while from the selected university inMalaysia, its contribution and dominance is very low concerning job satisfaction in theeducational working sector.

For the decision-making style, there is a scarcity of research in Malaysia usingRowe’s theory (of decision-making style) and Likert’s management style theory in theschool and university context. In terms of using Herzberg’s theory of hygieneand motivator, much research has been conducted in schools and universities usingHerzberg’s theory of job satisfaction. However, to my knowledge, the applicationof all Herzberg’s 16 factors of job satisfaction is scarce; rather they tend to use five to 12factors only.

In this sense, job satisfaction of the academic staff in this research university wasmaintained and credit should go to the Malaysian Ministry of Education for theirgreat efforts in reforming the educational system (in Malaysia) to meet the world’s neweducational standards and development. The Ministry has given tremendous financialsupport to the public universities, especially the five research universities in terms of:

(1) infrastructure;

(2) development;

(3) research grants;

(4) students’ scholarships; and

(5) fellowships and loans.

Many academic programmes, activities and projects have been conducted andprovided by the University through the Ministry of Education to support teaching andlearning in the Malaysian educational system.

Hopefully, the financial support given by the government to the institutions ofhigher learning are well utilized by the public and research universities as well asthe academic staff in improving themselves because their improvement will lead to theproduction of quality students to meet the markets’ demand, parents’ expectations andhuman capital for the national development programme.

17. Summary of the significant findingsThe results of this study have shown that the university managers at a researchuniversity in Malaysia tend to be analytical in making decisions. In addition, theparticipative decision-making style has become a major concern, and, accordingly, wasproposed by the academic staff for the university managers to adopt. In relation to jobsatisfaction, the research has proven the importance of hygiene or intrinsic factors onteaching staff serving with the teaching profession and has sent a serious message tothe university authority and policy makers in Malaysia to look into the issues relatedto salary, management, supervision, policy, security, status, relationship with peers andpersonal life development, as it analytically predicts academic staff job satisfaction inthis university.

Furthermore, the research has elucidated interesting findings. It is revealed that thedecision-making styles of the university management in the Malaysian researchuniversity have a direct effect on the academic staff job satisfaction while the

638

IJEM26,7

university management style has indirectly affected academic job satisfactionthrough the university decision-making style. Thus, the university management styledetermines their decision style, which controls job satisfaction:

. Further research is needed on university leadership styles in Malaysia and theireffect on university academic performance and ranking.

. In Malaysia, today, it is witnessed that the university teaching staff numbers areseriously declining as the staff are resigning from their teaching professionbecause of certain policies imposed by the university management in order touplift the academic standard of the university to meet the world universityranking. With these crises and fallouts, further research is recommended toexamine the impact of these policies on the declining trend of academics andfurther university development in Malaysia.

. Further research is considered to be essential to identify the current governmentinvolvement in the university management and policy and its practical effectson the academic policy.

. Further research also needs to be conducted to competently establish a standardbenchmark on the performance of the five Malaysian research universitiesin terms of management, students’ performance outcomes and theirmarketability.

References

Adelabu, M.A. (2005), “Teacher motivation and incentives in Nigeria”, available at: www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/PolicyStrategy/3888Teacher_motivation_Nigeria.pdf(accessed 4 January 2008).

Adenike, A. (2011), “Organizational climate as a predictor of employee job satisfaction: evidencefrom covenant university”, Business Intelligence Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 157-66

Akpofure, R.R., Ikhifa, O.G., Imide, O.I. and Okokoyo, I.E. (2006), “Job satisfaction amongeducators in colleges of education in southern Nigeria”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 6No. 5, pp. 1094-8.

Amzat, H.I. and Idris, A.R. (2011), “Lecturers’ satisfaction towards university managementand decision-making styles in some Malaysian public universities”, ScienceDirectProcedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 15, World Conference on Educational Science,pp. 3957-70.

Andrea, G., Dan, Jensen T.M. and Richard, M. (2008), “Job satisfaction among elementary leveleducators”, Job Satisfaction Survey, available at: http://circle.adventist.org/files/CD2010/bibliographies/SDAedResearch.Data/PDF/JobSatisfactionK-8teachers-2974139648/JobSatisfactionK-8teachers.pdf (accessed September 2010).

Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P., Conley, S.C. and Bauer, S. (1990), “The dimensionality of decisionparticipation in educational organizations: the value of a multi-domain evaluativeapproach”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 126-67.

Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C. and Shedd, J.B. (1986), “The work environment and school reform”,Teachers College Record, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 240-56.

Baloch, Q.B. (2009), “Effects of job satisfaction on employees motivation & turn overintentions”,Journal of Managerial Sciences, Vol. II No. I, pp. 1-21.

Barnard, C.I. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, (30th anniversary edition) HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

639

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Bohrnstedt, G. and Knoke, D. (1994), Statistics for Social Data Analysis, 3rd ed., FE PeacockPublishers, Inc, Itasca, IL, ISBN-10: 087581381X, ISBN-13: 978-0875813813.

Boreham, N., Gray, P. and Blake, A. (2006), “Job satisfaction among newly qualified teachers inScotland”, TLRP&ESRC, paper presented to the Annual Conference of the BritishEducational Research Association, University of Warwick, Coventry, September.

Boulgarides, D.J. and Cohen, W.A. (2001), “Leadership style vs leadership tactics”, Journal ofApplied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59-73.

Campbell, A.R. (2001), Teacher Occupational Satisfaction in Non-government Schools on South-East Queensland, unpublished doctoral thesis, UNE, Armidale.

Campbell, A. and Flindios, M. (2004), “Enhancing teacher occupational satisfaction: theintegral role of school leaders”, Perspective of Educational Leadership, Vol. 14 No. 7,ISSN 1448-0476.

Chimanikire, P., Mutandwa, E., Gadzirayi, C.T., Muzondo, N. and Mutandwa, B. (2007),“Factors affecting job satisfaction among academic professionals in tertiaryinstitutions in Zimbabwe”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 1 No. 6,pp. 166-75.

Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1No. 4, pp. 512-32.

Crossman, A. and Abou-zaki, B. (2003), “Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanesebanking staff”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4.

Crossman, A. and Harris, P. (2006), “Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers”, EducationalManagement Administration Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 29-46.

Darmody, M. and Smyth, E. (2010), “Job satisfaction and occupational stress among primaryschool teachers and school principals in Ireland”, ESRIA report compiled by the ESRI onBehalf of The Teaching Council, Dublin.

Day, C. (2002), “The challenge to be best: reckless curiosity and mischievous motivation”,Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp. 421-34.

Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammon, P. and Kington, A. (2006), “Variations in the work and lives ofteachers relative and relational effectiveness”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory andPractice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 169-92.

Denizer, D. (2008), “Accidents at work and work related health problems by sex, status, age andseverity”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 721-60.

DeVaney, S.A. and Chen, Z.S. (2003), “Job satisfaction of recent graduates in financial services”,US Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Compensation and WorkingConditions, Washington, DC, May.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (2000), “Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 379-96.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (1998), “A three domain model of teacher and school executivesatisfaction”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 Nos 3-4, pp. 362-78.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (2002), “The international teacher 2000 project: an international study ofteacher and school executives satisfaction, motivation and health in Australia, England,USA, Malta and New Zealand”, paper presented at the challenging future conference,university of New England, Armidale.

Duncan, O.D. (1969), “Inheritance of poverty or inheritance of race?”, in Moynihan, D.P. (Ed.), OnUnderstanding Poverty, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 85-110.

Evans, L. (2001), “Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction and motivation among educationprofessionals: re-examining the leadership dimension”, Educational ManagementAdministration, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 291-306.

640

IJEM26,7

Evdokia, K. (2009), “How satisfied are Greek EFL teachers with their work? Investigating themotivation and job satisfaction levels of Greek eflteachers”, 59 Portalinguarum,ISSN: 1697-7467, pp. 59.

Fajana, S. (2002), Human Resource Management, Labofin and Company, Lagos.

Farber, B. (1982), “Stress and burnout: implications for teacher motivation”, paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, March.

Fenwick, L. and Murlis, H. (1994), Managing Performance, BBC Training Videos, BBC Enterprises,London.

Gellatly, I.R. (2005), “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: a test of acausal model”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 469-46.

Glisson, C.V. and Durick, M. (1988), “Predictors of job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment in human service organizations”, Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,pp. 61-8.

Gouldner, A.W. (1954), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Gurinder, K. and Gursharan, S.K. (2010), “Job satisfaction: a challenging area of research ineducation”, MPRA Paper No. 29667, posted 31, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29667/ (accessed March 2011).

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through design of work”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-79.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), “Multivariate data analysis”, 5thed., Printice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hall, J.W. (1972), “A comparison of Halpin and croft’s organizational climates and Likert andLikert’s organizational systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 586-90.

Hargreaves, A. (1994), Changing Teachers, Changing Times, Cassell, London.

Hargreaves, A. (1998), “The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education”,Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 835-54.

Herzberg, F. (1972), “The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower”, in Hampton, D. R.(Ed.), Behavioral Concepts in Management, 2nd ed., Dickensen Publishing Comp. Inc, Belmont,California, CA, pp. 33-40.

Hofstede, G. (1980/1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work RelatedValues, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ian, H.F.B. (2005), “The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitmentamong high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the western in the western cape”,mini-thesis, Degree of Magister Artium, Department of Industrial Psychology, Faculty ofEconomic and Management Science, University of the Western Cape, Western Cape.

Jaafar, M., Ramayah, T. and Zainal, Z. (2006), “Work satisfaction and work performance: howproject managers in Malaysia perceived it”, a paper presented at Academy of WorldBusiness, Marketing & Management Development Conference, “Business across Bordersin the 21st century”, Paris.

Jaime, X.C. and Jamie, C. (1999), “A comparative analysis of Ohio agriculture teachers’ level of jobsatisfaction”, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, PP. 67-79.

Judge, T.A. and Church, A.H. (2000), “Job satisfaction: research and practice”, in Cooper, C. L. andLocke, E. A. (Eds), Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory with Practice,Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 166-98.

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: How People and Companies Succeed ThroughInnovation in the New Corporate Era, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Keith, A.B. and John, S.H. (2006), “Job satisfaction of the highly educated: the role of gender, academictenure and earnings”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 253-79.

641

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Khetarpal, I.K. and Srivastava, R.C. (2000), “Management styles grounded in interpersonal roles”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 74-83.

Kosteas, V.D. (2009), Job Satisfaction Promotions, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.

Kosteas, D.V. (2010), Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economyand Society, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 174-94.

Kyriacou, S., Kunc, R., Stephens, P. and Hultgren, A. (2003), “Student teachers’ expectationsof teaching as a career in England and Norway”, Educational Review, Vol. 55 No. 3,pp. 255-63.

Lambert, E., G; Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T. and Jennings, M. (2008), “The impact of work-family conflict on social work and human service worker job satisfaction andorganisational commitment: an exploratory study”, Administration in Social Work,Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 55-74.

Lester, P.E. (1982), “Development and factor analysis of the teacher job satisfaction questionnaire(TJSQ)”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 223-33.

McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, Hong J. and Owen, J. (2007), “Staff in Australia’s schools 2007”,ACER & Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and WorkplaceRelations, available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/3 (accessed October 2010).

March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York.

Miller, J. (1980), “Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction”, Work andOccupations, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 337-66.

Miller, K.I. and Monge, R.R. (1986), “Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analyticreview”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 727-53.

Mittler, J.E. (2002), “It’s management quality that matters-not style?”, Journal for Quality andParticipation, Vol. 25 pp. 19-21.

Neves de Jesus, S. and Lens, W. (2005), “An integrated model for the study of teacher motivation”,in Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 119-34.

Noordin, F. and Jusoff, K. (2009), “Levels of job satisfaction amongst Malaysian academic staff”,CCSE Journal of Asian Social Science, Vol. 5 No. 5.

Oshagbemi, T. (1997), “The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organisational members”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 511-20.

Oshagbemi, T. (2003), “Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UKuniversities”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1210-31.

Payne, R.L. and Morrison, D. (2002), “The differential effects of negative affectivity on measuresof well- being versus job satisfaction and organisational commitment”, Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 415-41.

Pezeshki, R.G., Golshiri, E.Z. and Zamani-Miandashti, N. (2008), “Investigation of leadership stylecorrelates affecting the staffs’ job satisfaction of Jihad-e-keshavarzi in yazd”, Journal ofAgricultural Science and Technology, Vol. 10, Supplementary Issue, pp. 421-9.

Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968), Managerial attitudes and performance, Homewood, Irwin-Dorsey, IL.

Rahim, A.R., Shukor, A S. and Llias, S. (2003), “Truths and Myths of Management practices andjob satisfaction among middle level management at public institution of higher learning inMalaysia”, available at: http://repo.uum.edu.my/270/1/TRUTHS_AND_MUTHS_OF_MANAGEMENT_PRACTICES_AND_JOB....pdf (accessed September 2010).

Redfern, S.H. (2005), “Work satisfaction, stress, quality of care and morale of older peoplein a nursing home”, Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 10 No. 6,pp. 512-7.

642

IJEM26,7

Rice, E.M. and Schnider, G.T. (1994), “A decade of teacher’s empowerment: an empirical analysisof teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980-1991”, The Journal of EducationalAdministration, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 737-57.

Rowe, A.J. and Boulgarides, J.D. (1994), Managerial Decision Making, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Rowe, A.J. and Davis, S.A. (1996), Intelligent Information Systems: Meeting the Challenge of theKnowledge Era, Quorum, Westport, CT.

Rowe, A.J. and Mason, R.O. (1987), Managing With Style: A Guide to Understanding, Assessing,and Improving Decision Making, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Saari, M.L. and Judge, A.T. (2004), “Employee attitudes and job satisfaction”, Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 395-407.

Saba, I. (2011), “Measuring the job satisfaction level of the academic staff in bahawalpur colleges”,International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1.

Sagie, A. (2002), “Employee absenteeism, organisational commitment and job satisfaction:another look”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 156-71.

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

Santhapparaj, A.S., Srini, V.J. and Ling, K.L. (2005), “Job satisfaction among women managersin Malaysia automobile manufacturing sector”, Journal of Applied Science, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 1553-78.

Schneider, M. (2003), “Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success”,National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Scott, C., Dinham, S. and Brooks, R. (2003), “The development of scales to measure teacher andschool executive occupational satisfaction”, Journal of Educational Adminstration, Vol. 41,pp. 74-86

Scott, C., Stone, B. and Dinham, S. (2001), “ ‘I love teaching but...’ International patterns ofdiscontent”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 9 No. 28, available at: http//epaa.asu.edu/v9n28.html

Serife, Z.E. and Tulen, S. (2009), “Job satisfaction: does rank make a difference?”, African Journalof Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 609-15.

Shamima, T. (2006), “Job satisfaction among female teachers: a study on primary schools inBangladesh”, M.Phil thesis, Department of Administration and Organization TheoryUniversity of Bergen, Bergen.

Shane, S., Blake, L.K. and James, K.S. (2004), “Respiratory therapists’ attitudes aboutparticipative decision making: relationship between managerial decision-making style andjob satisfaction”, Respiratory Care, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 917-25.

Shann, M. (1998), “Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middleschools”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 67-73.

Sharma, M. and Ghosh, A. (2006), “Perception of organizational climate and jobsatisfaction in nursing staff personnel”, Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 67 No. 3,pp. 263-74.

Shields, M.A. and Ward, M. (2001), “Improving nurse retention in the National Health Service inEngland: the impact of job satisfaction on intention to quit”, Journal of Health Economics,Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 677-67.

Short, P.M. and Greer, J.T. (1993), “Restructuring schools through empowerment”, in Murphy, J.and Hallinger, P. (Eds), Restructuring Schooling: Learning From Ongoing Efforts, Corwin,Newbury Park, CA, pp. 165-87.

Simon, H.A. (1960), The New Science of Management Decision, Harper, New York, NY.

643

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles

Sirin, E.F. (2009), “Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction and attitude among researchassistants in schools of physical education and sports”, Journal of Theory and Practice inEducation, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 85-104.

Sloan, A. (2002), “The jury is in: greed isn’t good”, Newsweek, 24 June, p. 37.

Souza-Poza, A. and Souza-Poza, A.A. (2000), “Taking another look at the gender/job satisfactionparadox”, Kyklos, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 135-52.

Suthukar, K. (1997), “Salary increase won’t stop brain drain”, STAR, 3 July, p. 14.

Tan, T-H. and Amna, W. (2011), “Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory and job satisfaction in theMalaysian retail sector: the mediating effect of love of money”, Asian Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 73-94.

Tang, T.L.P., Luna-Arocas, R., Sutarso, T. and Tang, D.S.H. (2004), “Does the love of moneymoderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship?”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 111-35.

Tannenbaum, A. (1968), Control in Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Tom, W.S. (2007), Job Satisfaction in the United States, NORC/University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Van den Berg, R. (2002), “Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice”, Review ofEducational Research, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 577-625.

Vandenberghe, R. and Huberman, A.M. (1999), Understanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van der Westhuizen, P. and Smit, C. (2001), “Job satisfaction of the circuit manager”, SouthAfrican Journal of Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 75-80.

Van Houtte., M. (2006), “Tracking and teacher satisfaction: role of study culture and trust”,Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 247-5.

Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affectiveexperiences”, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-94.

Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organization, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Zainudin, A., Junaidah, H.A. and Nazmi, M.Z. (2010), “Modelling job satisfaction and workcommitment among lecturers: a case of UITM kelantan”, Journal of Statistical Modelingand Analytics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 45-59.

Zembylas, M. (2004), “Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus”, Journal of EducationalAdministration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 357-74.

Zembylas, M. and Papanastasiou, E. (2006), “Sources of teacher job satisfaction anddissatisfaction in Cyprus”, Compare, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 229-47.

Zigarelli, M.A. (1996), “An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools research”, TheJournal of Educational Research, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 103-10.

Further reading

Alan, R. and James., B. (1994), Managerial Decision Making, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth, Free Press, New York, NY.

Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lise, M.S. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Employee attitudes and job satisfaction”, Wiley InterScience,Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 395-407.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Ahearne, M. (1998), “Some possible antecedents ofin-role and extra-role salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3,pp. 87-99.

644

IJEM26,7

Miller, L.E. and Smith, K.L. (1983), “Handling non-response issues”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 21No. 5, pp. 45-50.

Nicoletti, C. (2006), “Differences in job dissatisfaction across Europe”, ISER Working PaperNo. 2006-42, ISER, University of Essex, Colchester, September.

Seidou, M. (1999), “IIUM lecturer participation in academic adminstrative and university policydecision-making”, unpublished master thesis, submitted in partial fulfilment of therequirement for the digree of master of Education, Kulliyah of Islamic RevealedKnowledge & Human Sciences. International Islamic University, Kulliyah.

About the authors

Ismail Hussein Amzat is currently a Lecturer at Department of Psychology in the Faculty ofSocial Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, Malaysia. Ismail Hussein Amzat is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: sunland72@gmail.com

Datuk Abdul Rahman Idris is a Lecturer at the Department of Educational Management,Planning & Policy in the Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Malaysia.

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

645

SEMs ofdecision-making

styles