INTRODUCTION:

Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. It is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job an affective reaction to one’s job and an attitude towards one’s job.

Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviors⁹

Moreover, job satisfaction is considered a strong predictor of overall individual well-being (Diaz-Serrano and Cabral Vieira, 2005)¹⁰ as well as a good predictor of intentions or decisions of employees to leave a job (Gazioglu and Tansel, 2002).¹¹

Job satisfaction is also important in everyday life. Organizations have significant effects on the people who work for them and some of those effects are reflected in how people feel about their work (Spector, 1997)⁸

This makes job satisfaction an issue of substantial importance for both employers and employees. As many studies suggest, employers benefit from satisfied employees as they are more likely to profit from lower staff turnover and higher productivity if their employees experience a high level of job satisfaction.

Literature review

Gibson and Klein (1970) found an increase in satisfaction with age over all tenure levels in their sample. They explained the age-satisfaction relationship in terms of changing needs, a mellowing process, and changing cognitive structures associated with age¹.

From their own studies Siassi et al. (1975) reported higher levels of job satisfaction in workers over 40 than in those under 40, regardless of the length of time they had been in the job. They explained this result by suggesting that there is an increase in coping capacity with age, perhaps as a result of greater stability, ego strength and similar factors².

Ronen (1978) reported a linear relationship between age and job satisfaction in a sample of private-sector production workers but not in a sample of Israeli kibbutz workers.³ Near et al. (1978) examined the relationship between age, occupational level and overall satisfaction, reporting that the strongest predictors of job satisfaction among eighteen variables were occupational level and age. When the effects of occupational level were controlled for, age remained a significant predictor of satisfaction⁴

(Bender et al, 2005) refers to the fact that women report higher job satisfaction than men despite a clearly disadvantaged position in the labour market in terms of earnings, recruitment/dismissals, promotions and career prospects.⁵

In another study (Hulin and Smith, 1965)⁶ reported a positive monotonic relationship of age, tenure and job satisfaction under all conditions for all individuals. But, when (Gibson and Klein, 1970)¹ studied the relationship of age, tenure and job satisfaction after considering a sample of 2,067 blue collar workers they found a linear relationship between age and job satisfaction. Whereas, for the negative linear relationship between tenure and job satisfaction, they developed “disconfirmed original expectations” to support their arguments. In a study conducted by (Saleh and Otis, 1964) it was reported that general satisfaction of an employee increased up to age 60 and declined until retirement⁷

Method and material for Present study:

Above discussion indicates the role and factors affecting job satisfaction In view of the above a study on factors affecting job satisfaction among academicians in management colleges was conducted with reference to management colleges in Faridabad. Since the study on job satisfaction among academicians is quite rare.

Objectives of study:

1) To study the response of job satisfaction among faculty members in terms of different parameters of job satisfaction.

2) To study job satisfaction on the basis of selected demographic variables

With reference to this different management colleges offering MBA program were selected on random basis on the basis of 2 factors –

· Institutes affiliated to either state or central university

· Private institutes

The questionnaire consisted of two parts where part A composed of demographic variables and part B consisted of a standardized scale which consisted of 15 items from work of Oshagbemi (1997) which measured various parameters of job satisfaction like pay, research promotion, work behavior, behavior of head of department on a 5 point scale strongly agree = 5 and strongly disagree =1)

Around 6 management colleges(both Government and private were taken on random basis and in total of 100 questionnaires distributed only 65 were received out of which 12 was incomplete leaving to total 53 as sample size. Coefficient of alpha was used to check the reliability of scale .After final study of 53 respondents the value of alpha coefficient yielded value of 0.95 which indicated that the scale was internally consistent and reliable

Further if respondent score mean of 45.0 it showed that degree of satisfaction is average if more than 45.0 it indicated higher satisfaction and if less than 45.0 satisfactions is less.

Profile of the respondents: –

Majority of respondent were females (62.50%) and remaining were males (38%).The average years of experience of lecturer was 4 years with 15,500.00, the average years of experience assistant professor was 7 years with average salary of Rs. 25,500.00 and of associate professor with average years of experience was 12 years with average salary of 38,000.00 and of professor with average of 23 years of experience was 54,000.00 respectively .

RESULT:

Table 1 represents weighted mean scores and corresponding ranks on dimensions of job satisfaction. This way preference for job satisfaction can be analyzed and presented .Also the dimensions preferred by faculties are quite different .The low weighted mean score indicates the higher preference towards that dimension

Ranks assigned on the basis of preference of dimension

S. No.	Dimension	Weighted mean	Rank
1	Teaching	2.93	1
2	Pay	3.84	2
3	Research	4.84	3
4	Job security	5.66	4
5	Management	5.80	5
6	Promotion	6.15	6
7	Co-worker behavior	6.56	7
8	Work load	7.04	8
10	Supervision	7.38	10

DISCUSSION:

From the table it is clear that teaching is been preferred highest which indicates that all of them preferred this profession by their own liking and this is quite important also since for better results liking the job is important which results in better efficiency , performance and results .

Next preferred dimension was pay that all faculty members preferred in this profession since ultimately it’s the financial motivator that keeps people driving The same has also been proved by many other motivational theories.

After pay research was the preferred dimension (Mean = 4.84), it is clear from this that every faculty wants that focus on self development in form of building knowledge capital by undergoing good research work , participation in different other events like conferences , seminars etc should be enhanced. Support from top management is preferred in this case .Also support in form of rich libraries where related journals are available by which the faculty can keep themselves updated and informed will be possible. Also as suggested by faculty during interview option for study leaves or access to e-library of related organization should be provided.

The next dimension was job security and management (Mean values =5.66.and 5.80) it is clear that faculty members preferred a stable job and for them security of the job was among the preferred variable .It also indicates that inspire of availability of many opportunities and options, since there are many management colleges in and around this region. Still the faculty prefer to have a stable job without much job hopping .This mindset also indicates that continuous switching off from jobs also gives a bad image.

Further, with respect to management it is also amongst the preferred variable since it’s the long term vision, objective and policies are the key forces that make routine activity and management functional and effective. The mindset to stay for long in an organization is also supported by fact that all of them prefer that sound management policy and action leads to better retention. But it is average rated since the management policies are something beyond the control of employees.

Next to preferred dimension of job satisfaction was promotion (Mean = 6.15) this reflects that promotion is amongst preferred but not in most preferred dimension since it is beyond the hands of individual member and much is also not done in this dimension by management .So an improvement towards this dimension is indicated form the figure.

Co-workers behavior (Mean = 6.56)) is also amongst one of least preferred variable which is quite alarming since earlier it used to be amongst preferred variable. But reverse response indicates that either due to overambitious goals or more focus on self is one of the primary reasons of less self affiliation need.

Further workload (Mean = 7.04) and infrastructure (Mean = 7.08) are amongst least preferred dimension since the decisions are all in the hands of management alone.

Supervision mean = 7.38) is the most least preferred dimension amongst chosen variable which proves that in terms of supervision the role of superior or head of department is not very involving .It may be because of the reasons that HOD and other higher ups do not spend much time on discussing problems or interacting with employees due to which some gap exits.

Management is the only dimension that falls five above and five below among dimension in terms of job satisfaction which also indicate that rate of participation of employees in management decisions have increased although this rate was quite low initially and it was completely centralized type of system.

Assessing Job satisfaction as per demographic variable:

From table 2 differences in mean, standard deviation, and variance in job satisfaction on the basis of demographic variables like age, sex, education qualification, designation can be seen.

S. no	Dimension	Mean	S.D	d.f	F-value
1	Gender
	Male	46.20	6.72
	Female	49.22	6.65	2.49	.005
2	Age
	Below 30	45.62	6.25
	30-40	48.00	5.74	2,49	5.02
	40-50	55.00	2.08
3	Qualification
	MBA	46.34	6.23
	PhD	51.62	6.18	2,49	2.32
4	Institute category
	University affiliated	46.25	5.22	2,49	0.54
	AICTE approved	49.52	7.28
5	Salary
	Above 15,000	45.76	5.24	2.49
	15,000-25,000	43.56	3.56		0.21
	25,000-35,000	45.76	5.24
	35,000 and above	48.91	6.7

This table reflects job satisfaction among faculty members on the basis of their demographic variables like age, Gender, education, Qualification institution category, salary of employees etc.

It is clear that females have scored more than males since the arithmetic mean of both of them is more than 45.0 it is evident that both of them are satisfied with their jobs. The mean scores of both of them does not have much significance difference as is clear from the F values (F= 0.005) It may be due to the reason because the workload and the environment is more or less is quite similar for both of them.

In terms of age and job satisfaction employees in higher age groups (Mean = 55.00) were found to be more satisfied than in middle (mean = 48.00) followed by lower age groups. (Mean = 45.62) .It is also quite clear from F values (F= 5.02,P<.05) that difference in mean score is statistically significant.

This is also due to the fact that faculties with increasing age have higher level of satisfaction because of increased responsibilities and attractive reward structure since as they move up the ladder the enjoyment in work also enhances.

In terms of education and job satisfaction, faculties with higher degree like PhD (Mean=51.62) have higher level of job satisfaction than those having other degree like MBA (Mean = 46.34) though both of them have a mean value of more tan 45.00 which proves that both are satisfied with job satisfaction in spite of differences in educational qualification., but the mean variation has not reached statistical significant level. (F= 2.32 P>.05).

With regard to institute category and job satisfaction faculties working in government affiliated university (Mean = 49.52) are found to be more satisfied than faculties in private universities (Mean =, 46.25).This may be due to the fact that working in government universities employees feel more secured in comparison to working in private universities due to insecurity in job ..But the mean variation of both of them is not as per statistical level of significance (F= 0.54, P<.05) .This indicates that irrespective of the category in which faculties are working satisfaction level of both of them are quite high.

With regard to salary and job satisfaction faculties drawing higher salary are highly satisfied (Mean =48.91) than other still since the mean at all the levels is greater than 45.0 it indicates that all of them are quite satisfied with the salaries they are drawing .It is because of the fact that depending on their qualification, experience and norms the salary offered is justified.

CONCLUSIONS:

Thus from the above following conclusions have been derived –

1) Teaching is the most preferred dimension among all faculty members which reflects that the respective institutes have maintained an environment that promotes teaching .Followed by this is pay which faculty members prefer a serious reason to stay in the organization., also since it is also clear that faculties getting higher salaries are more satisfied than other it is clear that monetary policies should be devised in a way so that to promote both better performance as well as retain efficiency of employees .

2) Research is a field where all of them agree that focus should be given .It is the area where maxim mum support on part of both management as well as by faculties should be given so that teaching can be improved as well self improvement can also take place.

3) With regard to supervision the faculty members were quite dissatisfied due to the factor tat interaction among faculty and their respective HOD is quite less and also the superior might have less time to discuss issues with faculty leading to dissatisfaction on this factor.

4) Similarly, support should be provided on part of top management to enhance faculties to do PhD and other higher courses which will enhance their knowledge and help in building their self esteem, better career options to perform much better.

5) Role of co-workers in job satisfaction is something which requires immediate action, in earlier studies there was an important role of co-workers in improving job satisfaction but in this study the role of co-workers in job satisfaction should be properly designed. This can be promoted by planning some group related task which could generate team work.

6) Thus, for different management institutes if proper monetary packages, designation wise promotion and a healthy environment which promotes job satisfaction is developed it will result in better retention satisfaction and higher performance of individuals. Apart from this interaction between faculty and head of the department should be practices which will help in improving rapport, trust and also better retention due to open door policy.

Implications of Study:

Thus following implications if made in other management institutes it will help in better retention, high job satisfaction and better team work among employees. Similarly other variables like role of organization commitment, motivation, organization ethics and its impact on job satisfaction of faculty members could be studied which will help in gaining momentum about factors promoting job satisfaction.

REFERENCES:

1. Gibson, J. L., and Klein, S. M. (1970), `Employee attitudes as a function of age and length of service: a Reconceptualization', Academy of Management Journal 13, 411-25.

2. Siassi, I., Crocetti, G., and Spiro, H. R. (1975), `Emotional health, life and job satisfaction in ageing workers', Industrial Gerontology 2, p.p 289-96.

3. Ronen, S. (1978), `Job satisfaction and the neglected variable of job seniority', Human Relations 31, 297-308

4. Near, J. P., Rice, R. W., and Hunt, R. G. (1978), `Work and extra-work correlates of life and job satisfaction', Academy of Management Journal 21, 248-64.

5. Bender et al, 2005, Job satisfaction and gender segregation Oxf. Econ. Pap. (July 2005) 57 (3): 479-496

6. Hulin and Smith, 1965, "Sex differences in job satisfaction", Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 49(3), Jun 1965, 209-216

7. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93, pp. 328-67. Saleh, S.D. and Otis, J.L. (1964), "Age and levels of Job. Satisfaction", Personnel Psychology,

8. Spector, Paul (1997) Job satisfaction, application, assessment, causes and consequences, bk, sage publications

9. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194

10. Diaz-Serrano and Cabral Vieira, 2005, Low Pay, Higher Pay and Job Satisfaction within the European Union:- Empirical Evidence from Fourteen Countries, National University of Ireland Maynooth, CREB and IZA Bonn, April 2005

11. Gazioglu and Tansel, 2002), Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job related, international journal of industrial ergonomics, volume38, issue1 January2009, p.p1-6

Received on 04.03.2010 Accepted on 20.04.2010

Asian J. Management 1(1): Jan. – Mar. 2010 page 04-07