1
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF
REGARDING THEIR JOBS
Assoc. Prof. Sibel ERKAL*
Prof. Şükran ŞAFAK*
Prof. Canan YERTUTAN*
Research Assist Selda COŞKUNER*
Özet
Bu araştırma, ev idaresi personelinin yürüttükleri işlere ilişkin memnuniyet
durumlarının incelenmesi amacıyla planlanmış ve yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya bir üniversite
hastanesinin gündüz vardiyasında çalışan 330 ev idaresi personelinden araştırmayı kabul eden
184 personel alınmıştır. Araştırma tanımlayıcı tipte bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın verileri
araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan anket formuna bağlı kalınarak 11 Şubat- 18 Mayıs
2008 tarihleriarasında ev idaresi personeli ile yüz yüze yapılan görüşmeler sonucunda
toplanmıştır. Veriler SPSS 11.50 paket programında değerlendirilmiş ve khi-kare analizi
uygulanmıştır.
Araştırmaya katılan personel arasında yaptıkları işlerden ‘‘genellikle memnun” olanlar
önde gelmektedir (süpürme %55.7, paspaslama %54.1, makine ile yer döşemesi fırçalama
%48.5, yer döşemesi cilalama %43.3, toz alma %44.0, duvar temizliği %44.9, pencere
temizliği %48.4, çöp toplama % 42.7, çöp taşıma %35.4, ıslak mekan temizliği %41.4).
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ev idaresi personeli, memnuniyet durumu
Abstract
This study was designed and carried out to analyze the satisfaction of housekeeping
personnel regarding their jobs. Of the 330 housekeeping personnel working the day shift at a
university hospital, 184 who agreed to participate in the study constituted the study
participants. The study was a descriptive study. Study data were collected via a
questionnaire developed by the researchers and administered in face-to-face interviews with
the participants between February 11 and May 18, 2008. Chi-square analysis and SPSS
11.50 software were used to evaluate the obtained data.
________________________________________________________________________________ *Hacettepe University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ankara
2
The majority of the study participants were “generally satisfied” with the jobs they did
(sweeping by hand 55.7%, mopping 54.1%, sweeping with a sweeping machine 48.5%, floor
polishing 43.3%, dusting 44.0%, wall cleaning 44.9%, window cleaning 48.4%, garbage
collection 42.7%, garbage removal 35.4% and wet floor cleaning 41.4%).
Key words: Housekeeping personnel, job satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
The hospital, as one of the most important organizations in society, plays a crucial role
in the lives of both its people and the overall community. Hospitals, which are among the
most complex service providing institutions in structural and functional terms and are among
the institutions with the highest operation expenses, have to render and maintain high quality
health services (Yıldırım, 1997; Aslan et al, 2004). Rendering high quality health services by
the hospitals can be achieved through numerous units. Housekeeping is one such area. The
role of housekeeping is to create a hygienic, tidy, secure, comfortable and aesthetically
pleasing environment. The environment meeting these requirements is not only important for
those working in the institution, and those receiving the services from it, but also in
maintaining the prestige of the institution in the community. Therefore, the need for
Housekeeping Services to be operated in a systematic, planned and scheduled way, with a
modern business management, becomes ever more apparent. It is essential that such services
be managed as successfully as possible for all institutions (Şafak, 1997) .
Within the scope of work performance, those undertaking service provision need to be
not only talented, but also competent in their specific jobs. These tasks involve the services
that should be fulfilled in the most effective and efficient ways. That is, there is a linear
relationship between efficiency and the competency of the actor to undertake the job (Tutum,
1979). To increase work efficiency, the competency levels of individuals must be considered
and their needs and expectations taken into account as well (Yertutan, 2000). Employee
success will increase in an environment where their expectations and needs are considered
since they feel happier in such a place (Taner, 1993; Ehtiyar, 1995; Yertutan, 2000).
3
Satisfaction, one of the quality indicators of a working life, refers to an individual’s
appreciating her/his job, or her/his satisfaction of the job using a placing or positive feeling
(Luthans, 1992). If this feeling is positive, satisfaction is felt; on the other hand,
dissatisfaction is felt if the feeling is negative. Satisfaction means a sort of feeling which
makes an individual happy, increases her/his motivation, and drives her/him to be more
efficient provided that s/he gains satisfaction in the workplace where an individual spends
most of his/her life (Ehtiyar, 1995). Because in a work environment where there is
satisfaction, procedures will be carried out at the required time, in the correct manner and with
quality deliverance, without interruption and without creating any chaos (Yertutan, 2000). A
high level of satisfaction is particularly important in jobs where the individuals personally
offer their efficiency and achievement and the job is based on making the individuals happy
and satisfied (Calt et al, 1991).
The present study was planned and conducted to identify the effects of variables such
as gender, age and education level on the satisfaction amongst housekeeping staff regarding
their jobs in a university hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
184of the 330 housekeeping staff working on both day and night shifts in a university
hospital in Ankara agreed to participate in this study based on a questionnaire that was
developed to assess the satisfaction of housekeeping personel regarding their tasks (Yertutan
et al. 1995, Aksu and Terzioğlu, 1998, Messing et al., 1998). The form is comprised of two
sections. Section one contains questions regarding gender, age and education levels of the
participant staff. Section two includes questions about the satisfaction level of the staffs
regarding the tasks they undertake. Thirty staff were used for the pilot study to check the
feasibility of the questionnaire form. Data of this descriptive research were collected during
face to face interviews held with the housekeeping staff between 11 February and 18 May in
2008 on the basis of the questionnaire form. Collected data were analyzed by using chi-square
analysis on the SPSS WIN 11.5 program in order to find out the effects of gender, age and
education level on the satisfaction.
4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General Information about the Housekeeping Staff
Of the participants, 67.9 % are male, 38.0 % are graduates of primary school or less,
39.1 % are between 26 -33 years old.
Satisfaction of the Housekeeping Staff Regarding the Tasks They Undertake
Table 1 regarding the satisfaction of the participant staff regarding all tasks they
undertake shows that the are “mostly satisfied” with what they do (sweeping floors 55.7%,
mopping the floor 54.1%, brushing the floors by using machine 48.5 %, polishing the floors
43.3%, dusting 44.0%, cleaning walls 44.9%, cleaning windows 48.4 %, collecting garbage
42.7 %, carrying garbage 35.4%, wet floor cleaning 41.4%).
In a study carried out by Yertutan et al. (1995) of the housekeeping staffs working in a
university hospital regarding their satisfaction, 76.6% of the employees reported
dissatisfaction. In a study conducted by Aksu and Terzioğlu (1998) on housekeeping staffs
working in state and private hospitals, the majority of the employees (80.7%) stated that they
do not like their jobs. The difference between previous studies and the present study can be
explained with more emphasis being placed on practices to increase employee satisfaction.
Within the framework of the effect of gender on satisfaction; in both of the groups,
those reporting that they are “mostly satisfied” with sweeping floors, mopping, polishing
floors, cleaning windows, garbage collection, carrying garbage and wet floor cleaning rank
highest. As for cleaning walls, 37.2 % of women participants were found to be “modestly
satisfied” and 53.9% of male participants were found to be “mostly satisfied” while women
were reported to be less satisfied than men with brushing the floors using a machine (mostly
dissatisfied, 17.0%), polishing floors (completely dissatisfied, 20.4%), cleaning walls (mostly
dissatisfied, 23.3%) collecting garbage (mostly dissatisfied, 16.1%) and carrying garbage
(mostly dissatisfied, 19.6%) (Table 1) (p<0.05). This finding implies that women are less
satisfied than men with tasks requiring physical power.
In a study carried out by Erdoğan (1992) to identify the satisfaction of contracted
employees and civil servants in public institutions, it was found that men are more satisfied
than women employees with their job; on the other hand, Güler’s study (1990) carried out on
employees in a factory demonstrated that gender is not the only effective factor on employee
satisfaction.
5
Table 1 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Their Satisfaction and Gender
Satisfaction Gender
Female Male
Total Number % Number % Number %
Sweeping
Floors
Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 3 2.4 4 2.2 Mostly dissatisfied 2 3.5 1 0.8 3 1.7 Moderately satisfied 13 22.4 17 13.6 30 16.4 Mostly satisfied 26 44.8 76 60.8 102 55.7 Absolutely satisfied 16 27.6 28 22.4 44 24.1 Total 58 100 125 100 183 100.0
X2=5.912 p>0.005
Mopping
Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 0 0 1 0.5 Mostly dissatisfied 3 5.1 1 0.8 4 2.2 Moderately satisfied 9 15.3 15 12.1 24 13.1 Mostly satisfied 28 47.4 71 57.3 99 54.1 Absolutely satisfied 18 30.5 37 29.8 55 30.1 Total 59 100 124 100 183 100.0
X2=6.469 p>0.005
Brushing the
Floors by
Using
Machine
Totally dissatisfied 7 14.9 0 0 7 4.2 Mostly dissatisfied 8 17.0 2 1.7 10 6.1 Moderately satisfied 9 19.1 21 17.8 30 18.2 Mostly satisfied 10 21.3 70 59.3 80 48.5 Absolutely satisfied 13 27.7 25 21.2 38 23.0 Total 47 100 118 100 165 100.0
X2=41.282 p<0.005
Polishing
Floors
Totally dissatisfied 9 20.4 0 0 9 6.3 Mostly dissatisfied 8 18.2 3 3.1 11 7.8 Moderately satisfied 8 18.2 22 22.7 30 21.3 Mostly satisfied 10 22.7 51 52.6 61 43.3 Absolutely satisfied 9 20.5 21 21.6 30 21.3 Total 44 100 97 100 141 100.0
X2=35.217 p<0.005
Dusting
Totally dissatisfied 2 3.4 4 3.2 6 3.3 Mostly dissatisfied 1 1.7 16 12.9 17 9.3 Moderately satisfied 4 6.9 9 7.3 13 7.1 Mostly satisfied 23 39.7 57 46.0 80 44.0 Absolutely satisfied 28 48.3 38 30.6 66 36.3 Total 58 100 124 100 182 100.0
X2=9.046 p>0.005
Cleaning
Walls
Totally dissatisfied 1 2.3 7 6.9 8 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 10 23.3 3 2.9 13 9.0 Moderately satisfied 16 37.2 22 21.6 38 26.2 Mostly satisfied 10 23.2 55 53.9 65 44.9 Absolutely satisfied 6 14.0 15 14.7 21 14.4 Total 43 100 102 100 145 100.0
X2=24.233 p<0.005
Cleaning
Windows
Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 6 4.8 7 3.9 Mostly dissatisfied 7 12.1 8 6.5 15 8.2 Moderately satisfied 15 25.9 20 16.1 35 19.2 Mostly satisfied 21 36.2 67 54.0 88 48.4 Absolutely satisfied 14 24.1 23 18.6 37 20.3 Total 58 100 124 100 182 100.0
X2=7.660 p>0.005
Collecting
Garbage
Totally dissatisfied 9 16.1 0 0 9 5.0 Mostly dissatisfied 5 8.9 12 9.9 17 9.6 Moderately satisfied 12 21.4 27 22.1 39 21.9 Mostly satisfied 19 33.9 57 46.7 76 42.7
6
Absolutely satisfied 11 19.7 26 21.3 37 20.8 Total 56 100 122 100 178 100.0
X2=21.171 p<0.005
Carrying
Garbage
Totally dissatisfied 10 17.9 4 3.3 14 7.9 Mostly dissatisfied 11 19.6 17 14.0 28 15.7 Moderately satisfied 13 23.2 29 23.8 42 23.6 Mostly satisfied 14 25.0 49 40.2 63 35.4 Absolutely satisfied 8 14.3 23 18.9 31 17.4 Total 56 100 122 100 178 100.0
X2=14.25 p<0.005
Wet Floor
cleaning (wc,
bathroom)
Totally dissatisfied 3 5.4 7 5.6 10 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 1 1.8 15 12.0 16 8.8 Moderately satisfied 15 26.8 21 16.8 36 19.9 Mostly satisfied 20 35.7 55 44.0 75 41.4 Absolutely satisfied 17 30.3 27 21.6 44 24.3 Total 56 100 125 100 181 100.0
X2=8.368 p>0.005
Table 2 shows that the employees from all age groups are “mostly satisfied” satisfied
with tasks such as sweeping, mopping, brushing floors by using a machine, dusting, cleaning
walls, collecting and carrying garbage rank highest. Among all age groups, only those
between 18-25 years old were found to be “modestly satisfied” with wet floor cleaning
(29.0%) and “moderately satisfied” with polishing floors (29.2%) at equal levels.
The satisfaction of the employees with “sweeping” in relation to age groups was found
to be statistically significant (Table 2) (p<0.05).
Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age
Satisfaction Age
18-25 26-33 34-41 42+ Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Sw
eep
ing
Flo
ors
Totally dissatisfied 2 6.5 1 0.7 1 1.5 0 0 4 2.2
Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 3 4.6 0 0 3 1.6
Moderately satisfied 8 25.8 5 6.9 16 24.2 1 7.1 30 16.4
Mostly satisfied 14 45.1 48 66.7 30 45.5 10 71.5 102 55.7 Absolutely satisfied 7 22.6 18 25.0 16 24.2 3 21.4 44 24.1
Total 31 100.0 72 100.0 66 100.0 14 100.0 183 100.0
X2=21.489 p<0.005
Mo
pp
ing
Totally dissatisfied 1 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 1 1.4 3 4.5 0 0 4 2.2 Moderately satisfied 5 16.7 9 12.5 10 15.2 0 0 24 13.1 Mostly satisfied 18 60.0 38 52.8 33 50.0 10 66.7 99 54.1
Absolutely satisfied 6 20.0 24 33.3 20 30.3 5 33.3 55 30.1 Total 30 100.0 72 100.0 66 100.0 15 100.0 183 100.0
X2=12.640 p>0.005
Bru
shin
g t
he
Flo
ors
by
Usi
ng
Ma
chin
e
Totally dissatisfied 2 6.9 2 3.0 3 5.2 0 0 7 4.2 Mostly dissatisfied 2 6.9 4 5.2 3 5.3 1 7.1 10 6.1 Moderately satisfied 8 27.6 14 21.5 7 12.3 1 7.1 30 18.2 Mostly satisfied 10 34.5 33 50.8 30 52.6 7 50.0 80 48.5 Absolutely satisfied 7 24.1 12 18.5 14 24.6 5 35.8 38 23.0 Total 29 100.0 65 100.0 57 100.0 14 100.0 165 100.0
7
X2=8.480 p>0.005
Po
lish
ing F
loors
Totally dissatisfied 3 12.5 2 3.9 4 7.7 0 0 9 6.3 Mostly dissatisfied 2 8.3 6 11.5 2 3.9 1 7.6 11 7.8 Moderately satisfied 7 29.2 12 23.1 9 17.3 2 15.4 30 21.3 Mostly satisfied 5 20.8 23 44.2 27 51.9 6 46.2 61 43.3 Absolutely satisfied 7 29.2 9 17.3 10 19.2 4 30.8 30 21.3 Total 24 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 13 100.0 141 100.0
X2=11.730 p>0.005
Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age (continued)
Yapılan İşlerden
Memnun Olma Durumu
Age 18-25 26-33 34-41 42+
Toplam Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Du
stin
g
Totally
dissatisfied 0 0 2 2.8 4 6.2 0 0 6 3.3
Mostly
dissatisfied 3 10.0 7 9.7 6 9.2 1 6.7 17 9.3
Moderately
satisfied 5 16.7 5 6.9 2 3.1 1 6.7 13 7.1
Mostly satisfied 13 43.3 30 41.7 30 46.2 7 46.6 80 44.0 Absolutely
satisfied 9 30.0 28 38.9 23 35.3 6 40.0 66 36.3
Total 30 100.0 72 100.0 65 100.0 15 100.0 182 100.0
X2=9.333 p>0.005
Cle
an
ing
Wall
s
Totally
dissatisfied 3 12.0 2 3.6 3 5.7 0 0 8 5.5
Mostly
dissatisfied 3 12.0 5 9.1 5 9.4 0 0 13 9.0
Moderately satisfied
6 24.0 16 29.1 14 26.4 2 16.7 38 26.2
Mostly satisfied 7 28.0 26 47.3 25 47.2 7 58.3 65 44.9 Absolutely
satisfied 6 24.0 6 10.9 6 11.3 3 25.0 21 14.4
Total 25 100.0 55 100.0 53 100.0 12 100.0 145 100.0
X2=10.443 p>0.005
Cle
an
ing
Win
dow
s
Totally
dissatisfied 3 9.7 2 2.9 2 3.0 0 0 7 3.9
Mostly
dissatisfied 3 9.7 6 8.6 6 9.1 0 0 15 8.2
Moderately
satisfied 3 9.7 15 21.4 14 21.2 3 20.0 35 19.2
Mostly satisfied 16 51.6 33 47.1 29 44.0 10 6.7 88 48.4 Absolutely satisfied
6 19.3 14 20.0 15 22.7 2 13.3 37 20.3
Total 31 100.0 70 100.0 66 100.0 15 100.0 182 100.0
X2=8.730 p>0.005
Co
llec
tin
g G
arb
ag
e
Totally
dissatisfied 2 6.4 1 1.5 5 7.8 1 6.7 9 5.0
Mostly
dissatisfied 2 6.4 8 11.8 5 7.8 2 13.3 17 9.6
Moderately
satisfied 6 19.4 19 27.9 12 18.8 2 13.3 39 21.9
Mostly satisfied 14 45.2 27 39.7 29 45.3 6 40.0 76 42.7 Absolutely satisfied
7 22.6 13 19.1 13 20.3 4 26.7 37 20.8
Total 31 100.0 68 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 178 100.0
X2=6.702 p>0.005
8
Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age (continued)
Satisfaction Age
18-25 26-33 34-41 42+ Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Ca
rryin
g G
arb
age
Totally
dissatisfied 2 6.4 2 2.9 9 14.1 1 6.7 14 7.9
Mostly
dissatisfied 2 6.4 13 19.1 10 15.6 3 20.0 28 15.7
Moderately
satisfied 6 19.4 21 30.9 13 20.3 2 13.3 42 23.6
Mostly satisfied 14 45.2 22 32.4 21 32.8 6 40.0 63 35.4 Absolutely
satisfied 7 22.6 10 14.7 11 17.2 3 20.0 31 17.4
Total 31 100.0 68 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 178 100.0
X2=12.468 p>0.005
Wet
Flo
or
clea
nin
g (
wc,
ba
thro
om
)
Totally
dissatisfied 3 9.7 2 2.8 4 6.3 1 6.7 10 5.5
Mostly
dissatisfied 3 9.7 7 9.9 4 6.3 2 13.3 16 8.8
Moderately
satisfied 9 29.0 15 21.1 9 14.0 3 20.0 36 19.9
Mostly satisfied 8 25.8 27 38.0 34 53.1 6 40.0 75 41.4 Absolutely
satisfied 8 25.8 20 28.2 13 20.3 3 20.0 44 24.3
Total 31 100.0 71 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 181 100.0
X2=10.536 p>0.005
Table 3 shows that for all education levels, participants that are “mostly satisfied” with
sweeping floors and cleaning windows have rank the highest.
In this study, the relationship between the employee education level and their
satisfaction with “polishing floors” was found to be statistically significant; while graduates
of high school and higher schools were reported to be less satisfied than the others with
“polishing floors” (Table 3) (p<0.05).
In the study carried out by Yertutan et al. (1995), it was noted that the level of
satisfaction decreased as education level increased. However, in İncir’s (1990) and Erdoğan’s
(1992) study, it was found that education level does not have any effects on employee
satisfaction.
9
Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level
Satisfaction Educational Level
Illiterate and
elementary
school
Secondary
school High
school Higher
school
Total
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Sw
eep
ing
Flo
ors
Totally
dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 2 4.1 0 0 4 2.2
Mostly
dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 1 2.0 0 0 3 1.6
Moderately
satisfied 11 15.9 12 19.0 7 14.3 0 0 30 16.4
Mostly
satisfied 41 59.5 32 50.8 27 55.1 2 100.0 102 55.7
Absolutely
satisfied 17 24.6 15 23.8 12 24.5 0 0 44 24.1
Toplam 69 37.7 63 34.4 49 26.8 2 1.1 183 100.0 X
2=7.145 p>0.005
Mo
pp
ing
Totally
dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 0 0 1 0.5
Mostly
dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 2 4.1 0 0 4 2.2
Moderately
satisfied 7 10.0 7 11.3 10 20.5 0 0 24 13.1
Mostly
satisfied 42 60.0 37 59.7 18 36.7 2 100.0 99 54.1
Absolutely
satisfied 21 30.0 16 25.8 18 36.7 0 0 55 30.1
Total 70 38.2 62 33.9 49 26.8 2 1.1 183 100.0
X2=14.364 p>0.005
Bru
shin
g t
he
Flo
ors
by
Usi
ng
Ma
chin
e
Totally
dissatisfied 1 1.6 2 3.6 4 9.1 0 0 7 4.2
Mostly
dissatisfied 2 3.2 5 8.9 3 6.8 0 0 10 6.1
Moderately
satisfied 10 15.9 8 14.3 11 25.0 1 50.0 30 18.2
Mostly
satisfied 34 53.9 31 55.4 14 31.8 1 50.0 80 48.5
Absolutely
satisfied 16 25.4 10 17.8 12 27.3 0 0 38 23.0
Total 63 38.2 56 33.9 44 26.7 2 1.2 165 100.0
X2=13.375 p>0.005
Po
lish
ing F
loors
Totally
dissatisfied 2 3.9 3 6.2 4 9.8 0 0 9 6.3
Mostly
dissatisfied 1 2.0 4 8.3 5 12.2 1 100.0 11 7.8
Moderately
satisfied 10 19.6 7 14.6 13 31.7 0 0 30 21.3
Mostly satisfied
26 51.0 27 56.3 8 19.5 0 0 61 43.3
Absolutely
satisfied 12 23.5 7 14.6 11 26.8 0 0 30 21.3
Total 51 36.2 48 34.0 41 29.1 1 0.7 141 100.0
X2=29.116 p<0.005
10
Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level (continued)
Satisfaction
Öğrenim Durumu Illiterate and
elementary
school
Secondary
school High
school Higher
school
Total
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Du
stin
g
Totally
dissatisfied 2 2.9 3 4.8 1 2.1 0 0 6 3.3
Mostly
dissatisfied 5 7.1 7 11.3 5 10.4 0 0 17 9.3
Moderately
satisfied 3 4.3 4 6.4 6 12.5 0 0 13 7.1
Mostly
satisfied 32 45.7 28 45.2 19 39.6 1 50.0 80 44.0
Absolutely satisfied
28 40.0 20 32.3 17 35.4 1 50.0 66 36.3
Total 70 38.5 62 34.1 48 26.3 2 1.1 182 100.0
X2=5.495 p>0.005
Cle
an
ing
Wall
s
Totally
dissatisfied 1 1.8 3 5.9 4 10.3 0 0 8 5.5
Mostly
dissatisfied 2 3.7 4 7.8 6 15.4 1 100.0 13 9.0
Moderately
satisfied 10 18.5 14 27.5 14 35.9 0 0 38 26.2
Mostly
satisfied 32 59.2 23 45.1 10 25.6 0 0 65 44.9
Absolutely
satisfied 9 16.7 7 13.7 5 12.8 0 0 21 14.4
Total 51 37.2 51 35.2 39 26.9 1 0.7 145 100.0
X2=25.231 p>0.005
Cle
an
ing
Win
dow
s
Totally
dissatisfied 1 1.4 2 3.2 4 8.2 0 0 7 3.9
Mostly
dissatisfied 3 4.3 3 4.8 9 18.4 0 0 15 8.2
Moderately
satisfied 13 18.8 12 19.4 10 20.4 0 0 35 19.2
Mostly
satisfied 36 52.2 33 53.2 17 34.7 2 100.0 88 48.4
Absolutely
satisfied 16 23.2 12 19.4 9 18.4 0 0 37 20.3
Total 69 37.9 62 34.1 49 26.9 2 1.1 182 100.0
X2=16.684 p>0.005
Co
llec
tin
g G
arb
ag
e
Totally
dissatisfied 2 3.0 3 4.9 4 8.7 0 0 9 5.0
Mostly
dissatisfied 9 13.0 4 6.5 4 8.7 0 0 17 9.6
Moderately
satisfied 9 13.0 15 24.6 15 32.6 0 0 39 21.9
Mostly
satisfied 32 46.4 27 44.3 16 34.8 1 50.0 76 42.7
Absolutely
satisfied 17 24.6 12 19.7 7 15.2 1 50.0 37 20.8
Total 69 38.8 61 34.3 46 25.8 2 1.1 178 100.0
X2=12.131 p>0.005
11
Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level (continued)
Satisfaction Öğrenim Durumu
Illiterate and
elementary school Secondary
school High
school Higher
school
Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Ca
rryin
g G
arb
age
Totally
dissatisfied 4 5.8 4 6.6 6 12.8 0 0 14 7.9
Mostly
dissatisfied 12 17.4 10 16.7 6 12.8 0 0 28 15.7
Moderatel
y satisfied 12 17.4 14 23.3 16 34.0 0 0 42 23.6
Mostly
satisfied 27 39.1 22 36.7 13 27.6 1 50.0 63 35.4
Absolutely
satisfied 14 20.3 10 16.7 6 12.8 1 50.0 31 17.4
Total 69 38.8 60 33.7 47 26.4 2 1.1 178 100.0
X2=9.946 p>0.005
Wet
Flo
or
clea
nin
g (
wc,
ba
thro
om
)
Totally
dissatisfied 1 1.5 5 8.1 4 8.3 0 0 10 5.5
Mostly
dissatisfied 8 11.6 5 8.1 3 6.3 0 0 16 8.8
Moderatel
y satisfied 11 15.9 14 22.5 11 30.0 0 0 36 19.9
Mostly
satisfied 31 44.9 28 45.2 15 31.2 1 50.0 75 41.4
Absolutely
satisfied 18 26.1 10 16.1 15 31.2 1 50.0 44 24.3
Total 69 38.1 62 34.3 48 26.5 2 1.1 181 100.0
X2=11.093 p>0.005
Conclusion and Recommendations
For this study, carried out in order to identify satisfaction of hospital housekeeping
staff regarding their jobs, the results can be summarized as follows:
Among the staff, the number of those mostly satisfied with their job is highest.
Male employees are generally more satisfied with jobs such as “brushing floors
by using a machine”, “polishing floors”, “cleaning walls”, “collecting garbage”
and “carrying garbage”.
The relationship between the employees’ satisfaction with their job and their
education level was found to be significant.
In the light of the research findings, it can be recommended that:
12
Awareness must be raised among staff regarding the importance of their job for
both the institution and themselves in order to increase their job satisfaction
and so that they can be motivated further.
The eligibility of the employees must be taken into consideration during the
recruitment process.
The age, gender and education level of the staff must be considered while
undertaking task distribution.
Other studies could be conducted to identify staff expectations that are
effective in increasing their satisfaction.
References
Aksu, S., Terzioğlu, G. (1998); Hastanelerde Çalışan Kurum ev İdaresi Personelinin
Sevip Sevmediği İşlerin İncelenmesi, 1. Ulusal Kurum Ev İdaresi Kongresi, 21-23 Ekim,
Ankara.
Aslan, Ş., Özata, M., Atayeter, C. (2004); Sağlık İşletmelerinde Ekip Yönetimi:
Fırsatlar ve Sınırlılıklar, Standard Ekonomik ve Teknik Dergi, 43 (516).
Calt, S.S., Miller, D.S., Irwin, R.D. (1991); Supervision Working with People,
Homewood, Boston.
Ehtiyar, R. (1995); Otel İşletmelerinde Çalışan Personelin İş Tatmini ve Verimliliğin
Bir Göstergesi Olan İşgören Devir Hızı ile İlişkisinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Antalya
Yöresindeki Beş Yıldızlı Otel İşletmelerinde Araştırmalı Bir Uygulama, Akdeniz
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Antalya.
Erdoğan, İ. (1992); Kamu Kuruluşlarında Sözleşmeli ve Memur Statüsünde Çalışan
Personelin Bazı Değişkenlere Göre İş Doyum Düzeyinin Karşılaştırılması, H.Ü.
Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.
Güler, M. (1990), Endüstri İşçilerinin İş Doyumu ve İş Verimine Depresyon, Kaygı ve
Diğer Bazı Değişkenlerin Etkisi, H.Ü. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
13
İncir, G. (1990); Çalışanların İş Doyumu Üzerine Bir İnceleme, MPM Yayın No: 401,
Ankara.
Luthans, F. (1992); Organizational Behavior, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill.Inc., New
York.
Messing, K., Chatigny, C., Courville, J. (1998); Light and Heavy Work in the
Housekeeping Service of A Hospital, Applied Ergonomics, Vol: 29, No: 6pp. 451-459.
Şafak, Ş. (1997); Kurumlarda Ev İdaresi, Damla Matbaacılık, Ankara.
Taner, B. (1993); Büyük Otellerde Yönetim Biçimlerinin Personel Üzerindeki Etkileri
ve Yöneticilerin Personele Yaklaşımlarında Bir Sistem Önerisi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
Tutum, C. (1979); Personel Yönetimi, Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü
Yayınları No: 179, Ankara.
Yertutan, C., Sökmen, A., Öztop, A. (1995); Hastanede Çalışan Ev İdaresi
Personelinin İşlerinden Memnun Olma Durumları ve Bunu Etkileyen Faktörler, 5. Ergonomi
Kongresi, İstanbul.
Yertutan, C. (2000); Kurumlarda Ev İdaresi Hizmetlerinin Verimliliği, Minpa
Matbaacılık, Ankara.
Yıldırım, S. (1997); Profesyonel Hastane Yöneticilerinin Nitelikleri Konusunda Sağlık
Meslekleri Mensuplarının Ön Kabulleri, H.Ü. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bilim Uzmanlığı
Tezi, Ankara.