Logistics

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.
htm
IJEM 26,7
616
Received 17 December 2010 Revised 29 July 2011 24 September 2011 Accepted 5 October 2011
Structural equation models of management and decisionmaking styles with job satisfaction of academic staff in Malaysian research university
Ismail Hussein Amzat
Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Datuk Abdul Rahman Idris

Department 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-making styles on the job satisfaction of academic staff in a Malaysian Research University. Design/methodology/approach The sample consisted of 218 respondents. The instruments used in 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 style and management style on the job satisfaction. Findings The findings showed that the research university had adopted an analytical decisionmaking style. The hygiene factors were the predictors of job satisfaction as perceived by the academic staff at the research university in Malaysia. Research limitations/implications This research selected a top Malaysian research university and small samples were selected from the whole population under consideration, thus, the findings can be generalized as similar to other research universities. In addition, the university management determines the decision-making style, and the job satisfaction of the academic staff is affected by the decision-making style of the university. Originality/value A contribution is made to the literature as the research reinforces the view that the management style and decision-making style can predict or affect the job satisfaction of the academic staff. Keywords Malaysia, Universities, Job satisfaction, Academic staff, Management style, Decision-making style Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 26 No. 7, 2012 pp. 616-645 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/09513541211263700
1. Introduction The more workers who are happy and satisfied with their jobs, the higher the productivity 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 educational institution. Their satisfaction and motivation are considered as a primary requisite for any successful teaching learning process. This issue is a complex phenomenon involving various personal, institutional and social aspects. It is generally believed that if 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
to students and the teaching ability to accomplish the goals and attain the desired objectives. Looking into the job satisfaction aspect in relation to the psychological needs of academic staff, the existing theories of worker satisfaction are complementary to and interrelated with the psychological theories of needs and values. Intrinsic sources of satisfaction are explained by the need theories, as was defined by Maslow (1954), whose study suggested general groups of human needs, which were arranged in the following hierarchical order beginning with the most basic human needs: physical, security, love, self-esteem and self-actualization. Herzberg (1972) refined the needs theory by investigating the deficiencies in specific work environments resulting in the Hygiene Motivation Theory. Previously, involvement of the staff in decision making has long been a critical concern in organizational research and many authors and researchers have written papers and conducted research on this issue (Bacharach et al., 1990; Barnard, 1938; March and Simon, 1958; Miller and Monge, 1986). In addition, employee participation has been examined since Second World War, as a key determinant of such organizational 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 superiors influence over the subordinates (Gouldner, 1954; Tannenbaum, 1968) can cause stress and burnout (Bacharach et al., 1986; Rice and Schnider, 1994). Research in educational settings has indicated that the organizers, administrators or principals personality, their method of working, the nature of interpersonal relationships and administrative practices or behaviour are likely to be of some importance in the differential performance of the academic staff of various universities (Khetarpal and Srivastava, 2000). Recent reform initiatives have focused on the autonomy of academic staff and their participation in decision making in universities. The private sector and research conducted in universities have identified the importance of worker/academic staff autonomy. This autonomy leads to a sense of ownership and empowerment where workers aim to grow within their profession and seek increased responsibility commensurate with their status. Accordingly, academic staff must have the means to make changes as well as believe 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 academic staff primarily by uplifting their participation in the decision making regarding the classroom milieu and the university environment. The ability to make effective decisions is vital to the successful performance of university academic staff as a whole. Simon (1960) called the decision-making process as the heart of executive activity, which was supported by Duncan (1969), who also considered the decision-making process as one of the administrators common jobs to tackle. Nowadays, the reform of the educational setting has been proposed and numerous structural changes and strategic government revisions that further underscore the need to improve the process of decision-making skills have been called for. 2. Problem statement Specifically, in the Malaysian educational institutional environment, the university management and decision styles have been reported to have a strong effect on the job satisfaction of lecturers, in addition, hygiene and motivators were found to be the factors that led to the job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of teaching staff (Ismail and Abdul, 2011).
SEMs of decision-making styles 617
IJEM 26,7
618
Moreover, the universities are predominantly financed and managed by the government 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 policymaking process and are somehow limited in their participation in the decision-making process. In the context of the Malaysian research universities, many complaints have been received from the staff about being ignored and left out in the decision-making activity and expressing particular dissatisfaction with the university management as well as its decision-making style. In one of the research universities, the academic staff complained 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 overlooked and excluded from consultative participation, and that the corporatization exercise was carried out in a feudalistic manner. In some of the Malaysian public and research universities, staff generally complain about the university management and decision-making style for being exclusively directive and authoritative. In addition, after the corporatization process in some of these universities, the consequence has created a sense of hostility among the staff as expressed through their complaints at being left out from the relevant participation. Furthermore, the educational, or, more precisely, the universitys policies, have been politicized because of the high level of sponsorship given by the government to universities in terms of maintenance, development, advancement, renovation, students scholarship and so forth. This has been thought to decrease the universitys autonomy resulting in restricted administrative independence. Eventually, all decisions rest with the government, and the academic staff are reduced to interpreting and applying the directives received (Razali and Nik, 1986). In this light, the management should lead the staff towards achieving the set goals towards maintenance of positive relationships with the staff. University management and decision-making styles should be flexible and consultative in their execution so as to inculcate a sense of belonging among the staff. Rigidity and bureaucracy should be eliminated in the educational system because it might lead to the academic staff developing a sense of alienation, frustration and inferiority, which could create psychological problems or trauma through feelings of desertion, discrimination or isolation from the university system. 3. Purpose of the study This study has sought to investigate the effects of management and decision-making styles on the academic staff job satisfaction in one of the Malaysian research universities by: (1) (2) investigating the level of job satisfaction and its indicators among the academic staff; and exploring the types of management and decision-making styles applied by the university management in the Malaysian research universities.
4. Theoretical framework This research relies on certain theories, such as Likerts management styles system theory, Herzbergs job satisfaction theory and Rowes and Boulgarides decisionmaking styles theory. The application of these theories helps to understand the
organizational, management and human behaviour. According to Rensis, Likerts theory of four management styles, managers should create a relationship with the subordinates to achieve maximum profitability, good labour relations and higher productivity and each organization must adapt to the use of human resources. These four systems have varied widely in the management style. Rowes decision styles help to understand the cognitive part of the human or the leader in making decisions as well as knowing things related to brain usage, which are represented in the way an individual approaches a problem. Herzbergs motivators and hygiene factors help in the study of human behaviour and their thoughts within the working climate. It explores the human psychological needs and deals with what motivates workers and what provides hygiene as well as employees well-being at work. The next section of this paper will detail with the conceptual framework underlying the study. 5. Conceptual framework (Figure 1) Based on the literature and theories, the researcher conceptualized the university management and decision-making style to have a direct effect on the academic staff job satisfaction. 6. Literature review 6.1 Management style and job satisfaction A 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 with people. It includes an understanding of the general principles of human behaviour particularly those involved in an innovative skill approach to leadership and the use of this 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 industrial settings. Likert revised the systems to be applied to educational settings. Thus, the review 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 the management/leadership style, in terms of motivation, communication, decision making and the characteristics of the control process (Pezeshki et al., 2008). The following are the four descriptions of the management styles based on Likerts theory: (1) Exploitive authoritative system: this management system stresses the obedience of the employees to the decisions made by the managers and those administrators
Management style
Job satisfaction
Decision-making style
Figure 1. The conceptual framework for the study
IJEM 26,7
that are in the top rank and status in the organization. In addition, with this management system, the subordinates or followers are not allowed to participate in the decision making because the organization simply focuses on completing the job as well as resorting to threats as weapons in compelling the employees to complete the specified job or task on time. (2) Benevolent authoritative system: with this system, the top officers in the management make decisions. However, the workers or subordinates are somehow motivated and rewarded if there is any constructive contribution from them without fear and threats. In addition, freedom of expression is sometimes allowed from the subordinates to the managers but it is restricted to a certain extent to what the management wants to hear. Consultative system: with this type of management style, the subordinates are motivated and rewarded and participation is allowed. Furthermore, the management uses their followers opinions and involvement but eventually the execution of the decisions is still made by the senior management. There is a greater flow of information (than in a benevolent authoritative system) from the subordinates to the management. Participative system: with this style, the management trusts and has complete confidence in their employees. There is a good relationship and communication takes place between the management and the employees, and there is participation in the decision-making process. This style allows freedom of expression, teamwork, responsibility and a sense of belonging on the part of the workers while organizational goals are the contribution and rewards are used as the motivation.
620
(3)
(4)
However, numerous studies have taken place in investigating the factors that affect job satisfaction with job autonomy, working environment and management styles being listed amongst the factors (Zainudin et al., 2010). In addition, it was reported by Lambert et al. (2008) and Adenike (2011) that the job satisfaction of academic staff can be influenced or affected by the quality of the relationships between the academics and their supervisors, the quality of the physical environment in which they work and the degree of fulfilment in their work. Additionally, academic staff sometimes view their operational climates as not being friendly and open because of lack of contact with the authority, poor communication and the presence of one-way communication between the educational managers and the subordinates, lack of feedback on their performance, lack of reward and recognition for a job done well, inadequate resources to execute their jobs and lack of personal growth and development (Fajana, 2002; Adenike, 2011). Similarly, the same results were found in Fajanas (2002) work on identifying a long range of factors that combined to affect the individual level of satisfaction in which it was discovered that supervision or leadership, participation, working conditions, social relationship, opportunities and achievement were the factors that managers or leaders used to elevate the workers job satisfaction. Furthermore, research done by Jaafar et al. (2006) using Herzbergs two-factor theory identified both the hygiene and the motivator as the factors that highly affected job satisfaction (Zainudin et al., 2010). In addition, similar results were reported by Sirin (2009) who found motivation as a factor for employers to utilize in increasing the job satisfaction of the employees as well as for maintaining a conducive environment.
6.2 Decision-making style From the psychological perspective, it is necessary to examine individual decisions in the 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 that represents the way an individual approaches a problem and uses information to formulate a decision (Rowe and Mason, 1987). Although correlation was found between 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-making styles, while a modest correlation was found between the consultative/behavioural style and the job satisfaction (Shane et al., 2004). In 1994, Rowe and Boulgarides made a tremendous contribution to the educational body of knowledge by inventing and theorizing decision-making styles from the psychological perspectives. Four forces determine the decision-making style, according to Rowe:
. .
Directive power and domination; clarity, not ambiguity; cognitive simplicity. Analytic challenge-based achievement, cognitive complexity, systematic and slow decision making. Conceptual achievements based on extrinsic rewards, such as, praise and recognition; people oriented, creative and idealistic. Behavioural cognitive simplicity, people orientation, compromising and good communicators (Boulgarides and Cohen, 2001; Rowe and Davis, 1996; Rowe and Mason, 1987).
6.3 Job satisfaction According to Akpofure et al. (2006), job satisfaction is defined in respect of ones feelings towards ones career or exact facets of the job or career, in relation to productivity and job performance shown from the outcomes. Thus, it is a complex variable, and, due to its complexity, it can be controlled through situational circumstances that surround the job and ones dispositional characteristics (Sharma and Ghosh, 2006). In this sense, it can be defined as the positive emotional response to the job situation resulting from attaining what the employee wants from the job (Gurinder and Gursharan, 2010, p. 2). Hence, it is an attitude subjected to cognitive evaluation affecting feelings (emotion), beliefs and behaviour (Weiss, 2002). From the educational perspective, Zigarelli (1996) refers to the job satisfaction of teaching staff as a single, general measure that is a statistically significant predictor of effective schools. In the findings of Fauziah and Anizah (2003), who conducted a study on academic staff in public universities in Malaysia, the academic staff reportedly had a collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980/1984) and had a moderate level of job satisfaction. Another study conducted in Malaysia by Santhapparaj and Alam (2005) on the job satisfaction among the academic staff in private universities in Malaysia showed that salary, promotion, fringe benefits, working conditions and others were significant determinants 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 job satisfaction. For example, Vroom (1964), stated that job satisfaction is negatively
IJEM 26,7
622
related to the discrepancy between the individual needs and the extent to which the job supplies these needs. Porter and Lawler (1968) categorized the influences on job satisfaction into two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors. According to these theorists, internal satisfactory factors are related to the work itself (such as feeling of independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling of control and other similar feelings obtained from work), whereas external satisfactory factors are not directly related to the work itself (such as good relationships with colleagues, high salary, good welfare and utilities). The influences on job satisfaction can also be divided into work-related and employee-related factors (Glisson and Durick, 1988). In relation to work hygiene and satisfaction, Herzberg contributed the two-factor theory in respect of human relations and motivation, as follows: hygiene theory and motivation. The two-factor theory distinguishes between: (1) Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility), which give positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as, recognition, achievement or personal growth. Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits), which do not give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from their absence. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects, such as, company policies, supervisory practices or wages/salary (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).
(2)
6.4 Job dissatisfaction Employees become dissatisfied with their jobs when their expectations are not met and when the working environment is not conductive. The resultant effects of dissatisfaction can be in the form of reduction of productivity in the workforce, decrease in organizational commitment and devotion as well as an increase in the discontinuation 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 and emotional aberration as well as psychological stress and disappointment (Denizer, 2008; Adenike, 2011). In the academic sector, the issue of the teachers job dissatisfaction is worrisome, as argued by Zembylas (2004). Their research is concerned not only with teachers leaving the teaching profession but also because the teachers dissatisfaction is associated with decreasing their commitment, lack of productivity, reducing ability to meet student needs, which lead to psychological disorders, such as, absenteeism, study stress and truancy (Day, 2002; Hargreaves, 1994, 1998; Van Houtte, 2006; Evdokia, 2009). 6.5 Factors leading to job satisfaction As job satisfaction was defined as a feeling that someone or a worker has towards their career, 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 some factors 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.
However, research and studies carried out around the world and across many years have differed between continents on major factors leading to job satisfaction. In some continents, hygiene factors were found to be the major problem affecting the worker job satisfaction while in others, motivator factors were the common factors. In Judge and Church (2000) and Saari and Judge (2004), their findings were both motivators and hygiene, namely, supervision, salary, co-workers, and so forth, whilst promotion and work itself were reported to be part of the most important job facets of satisfaction. A positive relationship with co-workers tends to increase the job satisfaction in the work force as DeVaney and Chen (2003) stated, and the relationship between the co-workers and their colleagues was a strong predictor for job satisfaction in the working environment. In addition, the strong relationship between the co-workers and the higher level of job satisfaction of the individuals was discussed by Crossman and Abou-zaki (2003), and Saba (2011). In terms of salary, the low salary of the workers has caused serious upheaval in the job satisfaction 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 predictor for work satisfaction as well as by Miller (1980), who stated that substantial rewards for 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 motivation and job satisfaction in the academic setting in developed countries around the world (Dinham and Scott, 1998b, 2000; Scott et al. 2001, 2003; Van den Berg, 2002; Vandenberghe and Huberman, 1999, Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2006). A research by Kyriacou et al. (2003) also reported that salary, workload and status are factors that lead to the early decline of some teaching staff in the teaching profession (Darmody and Smyth, 2010). This appealed to Tang et al. (2004) who argued that when a worker loves 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 to have 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 job satisfaction according to numerous researchers (Baloch, 2009). Thus, academic staff are reportedly satisfied when there are promotional opportunities and it was suggested by Kosteas (2009) that academic staff are committed and motivated when they believe or envisage that there are promotions or receive promotions in a short period of time. Hence, this increased their morale, performance and job satisfaction, as reported by Saba (2011) when she stated that the respondents of her study were satisfied with the 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 the process of promotion in their jobs. 6.6 Job satisfaction across borders It has been proven worldwide that teachers are never satisfied with their jobs. Studies conducted worldwide found that teachers have the highest level of work stress and are less satisfied with their jobs than any other professional group (Neves de Jesus and 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).
IJEM 26,7
624
Comparing the intrinsic and the extrinsic motivations of Herzberg, a research conducted by the International Teacher 2000 has shown interesting findings, which indicate that teachers, worldwide, are more motivated by intrinsic motivators than by extrinsic motivation or hygiene. This series of studies revealed that the teachers greatest satisfaction concerns the issues related to the achievement of teachers in helping 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 four English-speaking countries Australia, England, New Zealand and the USA where the project was implemented and research conducted concerning the eagerness of working with different people (Dinham and Scott, 2000, 2002; Scott et al., 2001), and motivating children and young people to realize their potential, to experience success and 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 job satisfaction for higher rank workers who seemed to be more satisfied with their jobs as compared to the lower rank workers (Oshagbemi, 2003). In Oshagbemis earlier study (1997) concerning the effects of rank on the job satisfaction of UK academics, 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 job satisfaction of the highly educated in the health professions and nurses in the National Health Service revealed that there was a strong impact due to promotion and training opportunities on job satisfaction compared to the workload or the salary (Keith and John, 2006). In Ireland, 2,000 primary teachers were surveyed on job satisfaction and occupational stress among primary schools and school principals by Darmody and Smyth, (2010), which showed that students behaviour and discipline, as well as parents involvement, were the main factors in respect of job satisfaction of the academic staff or teachers, while unfavourable relationships between the staff members 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 to be 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 in similar fields in developed countries (Zembylas, 2004). In Scotland, similar findings were reported by Boreham et al. (2006) in a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. Five motivator factors or intrinsic factors were found to be related to the job satisfaction of the teaching staff, which, in descending order are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) recognition by the pupils of their status as teachers; their working relationship with their departmental colleagues; support from their subject mentor; support from other colleagues in the department; and their relationship with pupils in the classroom. the availability of permanent posts in their subject;
While job dissatisfaction of the teaching staff in descending order is shown:
(2) (3) (4) (5)
pupil behaviour in the school; the balance between work and private life; their salary as a probationary teacher; and the availability of material resources for teaching the most dissatisfied factors.
Australia and New Zealand. In examining job satisfaction globally, the factors relating to teaching, students and promotion, achievement and teaching itself are deemed to be the satisfactory factors for teachers. In relation to this, a PhD thesis by Campbell (2001) cited by Campbell and Flinders, (2004) in Queensland on 300 non-government primary and secondary school teachers, found that schools and school leaders had acknowledged that students success, improvement and achievement, encouraging supportive professional relations among colleagues, providing opportunities to mentor colleagues and to develop professionally, particularly in the development of curriculum knowledge led to the teachers job satisfaction. In addition, it determined the occupational satisfaction of the teacher when there was a cultural promotion of students achievement, improvement, teacher accomplishment, recognition and strong relationship as well as a sense of belonging amongst the staff (Alan and Matthew, 2004). In addition to this, the highest level of satisfaction was noted in relation to the teachers working relationships with their colleagues, and their working relationships with the parents/guardians in a study carried out by ACER with the assistance of the Australian College of Educators, with 20,000 teachers and school leaders participating in the study (McKenzie, 2007). The USA. In the USA, 69.2 per cent of the teachers were satisfied with the issues relating to teaching in a research conducted by Tom (2007) on the job satisfaction in the USA, 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 relating to the interpersonal relationships, policy/administration, salary, supervision/technical and working conditions while some were slightly satisfied. In relation to gender, it found that female teaching staff were consistently dissatisfied with the policy and administration, supervision and the working conditions as compared to the male teaching staff. Similarly, Jaime and Jamie (1999) reported and concluded in their research done among the teachers in Ohio agriculture teaching staff that there was a relationship between the achievement, advancement, recognition, responsibility with the work itself and teaching staff job satisfaction. When applying Herzbergs hygiene factors, it was found in Chicago and Washington, DC, that a problem relating to hygiene had shown that school teaching staff in both states had lost working days or suffered adverse health effects due to inadequate working conditions. In addition, overcrowding, quality of air, noisy hallways, dirty restrooms and cafeterias, and insufficient teaching facilities and materials were reported by the teaching staff as the causes of the job dissatisfaction (Schneider, 2003; Andrea et al., 2008). Asia. In Malaysia, recent research was conducted by Amzat and Idris (2011) on the job satisfaction of lecturers in two top Malaysian universities. At university A, working condition was ranked as the top job satisfaction factor amongst the academic staff, followed by relationship with the peers, the work itself and advancement, while at university B, relationship with subordinates was ranked as the top leading factor for job satisfaction, followed by relationship with the peers, advancement, the work itself and the responsibility.
IJEM 26,7
626
In addition, in research done by Chimanikire et al. (2007) and Santhapparaj and Alam (2005) it was discovered that promotional opportunities, workload and relationship with colleagues had a great effect on the job satisfaction of lecturers. Unfortunately, these findings seem to be inconsistent with the European studies where the teachers and workers were satisfied with the teaching profession. This discrepancy could most probably be due to the different socio-economic situational circumstances. This is consistent with the findings on working with children, developing warm personal relationships with children, the intellectual challenge of teaching, autonomy and independence and having opportunities to try out new ideas (Day, 2002; Dinham and Scott, 1998; Evans, 2001; Farber, 1982, Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2006; Scott and Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Zembylas, 2004; Evdokia, 2009). Hence, it was reported that the majority of the participants opted initially and unselfishly for the EFL profession for intrinsic factors rather than extrinsic, such as, salary, benefits, promotion and status which were ranked as the least factors for choosing the teaching profession (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 the university. In addition, she revealed again that the salary, status and age of academic staff had a serious effect on their level of job satisfaction. In Bangladesh, salary and other extrinsic factors seemed to cause the major problems and dissatisfaction, for example, in an empirical research carried out by Shamima (2006) on the female teachers job satisfaction in Bangladesh at six government primary schools in which she discovered that the salary, academic qualification, career development or growth, supervision, management, working environment and culture were the main factors affecting the job satisfaction of both the male and the female teachers. Africa. In Nigeria, a research conducted by Adelabu (2005) on teacher motivation and incentives showed that generally teachers or teaching staff were de-motivated and dissatisfied with their living and working conditions because of the low salary compared to other professionals with related irregularities, such as low status in the society, lack of promotion, lack of career advancement opportunities, poor working environment and low allowances. In another study carried out by Akpofure et al. (2006) on the job satisfaction among educators in colleges in southern Nigeria, similar results were obtained where educators were dissatisfied with their jobs, especially, in terms of salary. In South Africa, the overall job satisfaction was found to be low in a research conducted by Ian Howard (2005), who examined the relationship between job satisfaction and the organizational commitment amongst high school teachers in Western Cape. Hence, it was discovered that the majority of the teaching employees of 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 a significantly strong relationship occurred between salary and job satisfaction, between advancement and job satisfaction, between co-workers and job satisfaction, and between the supervision and the job satisfaction. In Zimbabwe, it was found by Chimanikire et al. (2007) that the majority of the academic staff in the tertiary institutions were not satisfied with their jobs and teaching careers due to high overwhelming workload, inadequate salaries,
allowances and inability to provide loans for purchase of houses and cars (Zainudin et al., 2010). 6.7 Summary With 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 across some countries while being very similar in others (Cheti, 2006). For example, differences were found in the level of job satisfaction of teachers and academic staff between the countries even within schools inside the countries themselves. According to Crossman and Harris (2006), the overall job satisfaction varied in UK according to the type of school, giving an example of private school teachers having 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 tend to 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 job satisfaction in the European continent while it is the opposite in the USA, as well as for the Asian and African continents where issues relating to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors are affected. In light of this, the employers, leaders and managers are urged to use different methods with various factors to boost the morale of the employees that can adequately improve their job satisfaction. 7. Methodology 7.1 Location of the study and population This study was conducted on one research university in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It only focused on the academic staff at the research university. The respondent staff were selected by the faculty or department and the sample size taken from each faculty was considered as representative. The population of this study comprised all the academic staff from all the faculties at this particular research university (main campus) listed in the 2008/2009 academic year. The educational level of the sample is as shown in Table I.
Object Population Male Female Academic level Professor Associate professor Assistant professor/Dr Lecturer Teacher
N 2,443 1,760 1,683 175 300 1,800 187
% 100 72.04 68.89 7.16 12.27 73.67 7.65
Total 2,443 1,760 1,683 175 300 1,800 187
Source: Human Resource Division (HRD, 2007)
Table I. Academic staff population at research university
IJEM 26,7
628
8. Research instrument 8.1 Job satisfaction In this study, the research adopted the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) with as light modification to suit the research objects and situation in the Malaysian environment, such as replacing the word teacher with lecturer and deleting some sentences that were deemed unsuitable in the Malaysian context. Teacher job satisfaction, as defined by Lester (1982), is the extent to which a teacher perceives and values various factors, such as evaluation, collegiality, responsibility and recognition. Lester developed the TJSQ specifically for use in various educational settings. The TJSQ 73 incorporated 66 items in nine subscales, which were categorized as supervision, colleagues, working conditions, salary, responsibility, work itself, advancement, security and recognition. 8.2 Decision-making styles The decision-making instrument in this study was based on the decision style model developed by Alan Rowe and Richard O. Mason (1987). A survey questionnaire was employed 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 the Florida State University main libraries to obtain descriptive data, such as, gender, age, ethnicity, educational level, educational major, current position and administrative experience. 8.3 Methods and statistical techniques used in previous studies Indeed, remarkable efforts and advanced methods have been used, and robust statistical analysis has been applied worldwide by the researchers in examining whether there is any relationship, difference and causal-effect of management, leadership and decision styles on workers job satisfaction in all working sectors. The literature review of the present study has proven that the majority of the research and works done in investigating the factors that led to the job satisfaction in the academic and non-academic sectors were conducted quantitatively. Hence, it is stated in the literature of this study that most of the studies relating to employees performance or led to organizational growth and development were performed using the survey method. In addition to this, the findings from the present literature have also shown that 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 males and females in terms of job satisfaction, while some analyses calculated the means to know the highest factor means. Other analyses used the correlation tests to determine whether there was any relationship between the management and job satisfaction, and some analyses explored the leading factors among the job satisfaction factors by using 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, leadership styles on staff satisfaction, or hygiene and motivators on the staff performance as well as the academic staffs intention to stay within the teaching profession or quit. 9. Data analysis 9.1 Statistical techniques used in this study In relation to the previous works and early literature, this research has followed the same steps by mainly using quantitative methods. For this reason, this study employed
exploratory factor analysis during the pilot study to confirm the factors loaded on their respective constructs and their reliabilities. During the actual study, the CFA or the measurement model in the SEM was used to confirm the construct and reliability of the items; testing theory; loading factors and indicators, using the AMOS version 18. The concept of using SEM or path analysis is to show causal relations between two variables, as SEM or path analysis is used and is adequate if the researcher is examining causal relationships or intending to link multiple and observed indicators to unmeasured 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 of causality and item reliability measurement, such as path analysis, SEM), Rasch model, CFA and PCA, which are more robust and inherently stronger and more powerful compared to other univariate techniques, such as ANOVA, correlation and Cronbachs a level based techniques. Precisely, those mentioned techniques could estimate or approximately calculate the error. 10. Findings 10.1 Demographic The findings showed that (n 218) of the academic staff participated in this research (n 111) were male and (n 107) were female. For the academic staff position, the majority of the participants were lecturers, followed by senior lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors and professors. The majority of these academic staff were PhD holders with 11 years teaching experience and not holding any administrative post. The rest of the participants were Heads of Department and Coordinators. The majority of the participants were academic staff from the Faculty of Social Sciences, followed by the Faculty of Education, Engineering and others. Regarding the academic staff department, the majority of them were from the Department 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 model To assess the fit of the measurement model, the analysis relied on a number of descriptive fit indices, as shown in Table II. The ten fit indices were used for decision-making and management styles as well as motivators and hygiene factors for the job satisfaction, such as: (1) (2) (3) the indices of comparative fit index of Bentler; adjusted goodness-of-fit index; goodness-of-fit index;
Variable
w2
df CMIN/df GFI AGFI 2.89 1.94 2.44 2.27 0.90 0.95 0.98 0.93 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.90
IFI 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.93
TLI 0.90 0.97 0.93 0.91
CFI 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.93
NFI RMSEA 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.90 0.070 0.66 0.82 0.77 Table II. Fit indices of decisionmaking proposed model for the research university
Decision making 133.15 46 Management style 46.7 24 Job satisfaction: motivators 9.76 4 Job satisfaction: hygiene 88.57 39
IJEM 26,7
(4) (5) (6)
the normal fit index; the Tucker-Lewis index; and the incremental fit index.
630
All the indices were found to be 40.90. The w2 goodness-of-fit test statistic was calculated, as were the degrees of freedom. All findings indicated that the model fitted the data and all these indices supported the model on the decision making and the management styles as well as the job satisfaction. 10.2.1 Determining best indicator for decision-making styles
.
Directive Figure 2 below presents the reliability and the loading of the Items according to their indicators. Item 6 was the best indicator for directive decision-making style with the highest loading and reliability (R2 54, y 0.73), and Item 23 was the lowest (R2 27, y 0.34). Analytic Item 18 was the best indicator for analytic decision-making style (R2 96, y 0.98), while Item 9 was the lowest (R2 71, y 0.84). Conceptual Item 26 was the best indicator for conceptual decision-making styles (R2 55, y 0.74) and Item 4 was the lowest (R2 47, y 0.68).
Measurement model of decision-making styles for research university

e1 0.53 Management decision style helps me to be productive and do the job in time. 0.27 Management looks for practical results from me. 0.10 e3 Management is aggressive in dealing with academic matters. 0.48 e4 Management asks for best solution from the academic staff. 0.40 e5 Management searches for facts to make decision. Management is good in solving difficult problems in the university. 0.74 0.48 e7 0.51 e8 Management decision-making style helps me to achieve recognition in my work. 0.39 Management decision-making style encourages me to have independent action. 0.33 Management decisions are flexible. 0.57 e10 Management makes decisions that provide a good working environment for me. 0.51 Management decision planning emphasizes on developing my careers. 0.43 Management is open-minded and polite towards me. 0.45 0.75 0.71 Behavioral 0.66 0.45 0.69 0.63 0.57 Conceptual 0.20 0.87 0.68 0.68 0.86 Analytic 0.89 0.20 CMIN/df=2.89 0.73 0.52 0.32 Directive CFI=0.93 TLI=0.90 AGFI=0.90 GFI=0.90 NFI=0.90 IFI=0.93
e2
e6
e9
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of Rowes decision-making styles theory for the research university
e11
e12
Behavioural Item 11 was the best indicator for behavioural decision-making style (R2 58, y 76) while Item 22 was the lowest indicator for behavioural (R2 45, y 0.67).
10.2.2 Determining best predicator for decision-making styles. Figure 2 also displays the best indicator for decision-making. Analytic was the best indicator for decision making with the highest item loading and reliability, followed by behavioural. 10.3 Determining best indicators for management styles
.
Participative decision making Item 12 (decision making) was the best indicator for management and teamwork (R2 51, y 0.74) while Item 14 from (decision making) was the lowest (R2 33, y 57). Leadership-motivation Item 2 (leadership) was the best indicator for leadership-motivation factor (R2 53, y 0.73) and the lowest was Item 17 (control) (R2 29, y 0.54). Control autonomy Item 19 (Control 1) was the best indicator for control and autonomy (R2 46, y 0.68) while Item 18 (Control 2) was the lowest (R2 26, y 0.51).
10.3.1 Best predictor for management making styles. Under management styles, participative decision making was considered as the best indicator for management styles with the highest loading and reliability (R2 55, y 0.74) followed by leadership motivation (R2 53, y 0.73), as shown in Figure 3.
Measurement model of management styles for research university

0.51
e2 e3 e4 0.16 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 0.30 e15 e16
How well does management know problems faced by staff? At what level are decisions made? Are staff involved in decisions related to their work? What does the decision-making process contribute to motivation? How are organizational goals established? How much confidence and trust does management show in staff? How free do staff feel to talk to management about their job? Where is responsibility felt for achieving organizational goals? How much cooperative teamwork exists? What is the usual direction of informationflow? How concentrated areoversight and quality control functions? How is downward communication from management accepted? How much covert resistance is there to the goalof implementing evidence-basedpratices? Is there an informal group resisting the formal organization? For what are prodctivity and performance data used?
0.55 0.41 0.33 0.46 0.45 0.53 0.29 0.46 0.48 0.35 0.45
0.17 0.74 0.64 0.57 0.67
Participativedecision-making
0.88
0.67 0.73 0.54 0.68 0.70 0.59
CMIN/df=1.51 2=128.548 Df=85 GFI=0.93 AGFI=0.90 IFI=0.96 TLI=0.95 CFI=0.96 NFA=0.90 RMR=0.03 RMSEA=0.04
Leadershipmotivation
0.88
0.85
0.35 0.26
0.67 0.59 0.51 0.68
Controlautonomy
0.46
Figure 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of Likerts management styles theory for the research university
IJEM 26,7
10.4 Job satisfaction 10.4.1 Determining best indicator for job satisfaction
.
632
Motivator factors Item 1 (advance) was the best indicator for motivator factors with the highest item loading and reliability (R2 65, y 0.82), while Item 17 (personal growth) was the lowest (R2 10, y 31) (Figure 4). Hygiene factors Item 24 (supervisor/management) was the best indicator for hygiene factor with the highest item loading and reliability (R2 69, y 0.83), while Item 28 (policy) was the lowest (R2 17, y 0.42) (Figure 5).
Measurement model of motivator factors for job satisfaction at research university
0.68 e1 Being a lecturer at the university provides me with an opportunity toadvance professionally. 0.33 e2 Lecturing at my university is very interesting profession. 0.38 0.82 0.58
0.31
e4
Lecturing at the university provides an opportunity for promotion. 0.20
0.61
Motivators
0.45 0.31
Figure 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of Herzbergs motivators factors for job satisfaction theory
e5
I am responsible for planning my daily lessons. 0.10
e7
Lecturing at the university does not provide me the chance to develop new methods.
2=9.767 CMINdf=2.442 Df=4 GFI=0.983 AGFI=0.934 RMR=0.049 CFI=0.972 TLI=0.930 IFI=0.973 NFI=0.955 RMSEA=0.082
Measurement model of hygiene factors for job satisfaction at research university

0.52
e1
I get along well with my colleagues at the university. 0.58
0.72 0.76
e2
Working conditions at the university are comfortable. 0.51
0.19
e3
Lecturing at the university provides me the opportunity to help my students learn. 0.61 I like the staff with whom I work at my university. 0.17
0.71 0.78 0.42
Hygiene 1
2=88.573 CMINdf=2.271 Df=39 GFI=0.936 AGFI=0.900 CFI=0.937 TLI=0.911 IFI=0.938 RMSEA=0.077
0.25
e4
e5
I try to be aware of the policies of the university. 0.46
0.54
e6
Lecturers income at my university is adequate for normal expenses. 0.35
0.68 0.59
0.57
0.45 Hygiene 2
e7
I am well paid as a lecturer in proportion to my ability.
0.76
e8
Lecturing at the university provides me with financial security.
0.55
Figure 5. Confirmatory factor analysis of Herzbergs hygiene factors for job satisfaction theory
0.21
e11
My immediate head offers suggestions to improve my teaching. 0.58 Management provides assistance for improving instruction. 0.69 Management is willing to listen to suggestions.
0.46 0.76 0.83 Hygiene 3
e12
e13
10.4.2 Determining best predictor for job satisfaction. Referring to Figure 5, it shows that Hygiene 3 was the best predictor for job satisfaction with the highest factor loading items (R2 69, y 0.83). 11. Confirming Herzbergs theory Table III presents the job satisfaction according to their ranking as perceived by the academic staff at the University of Malaya. The table shows that, advance has been ranked as the first predictor for Motivator for job satisfaction with the highest loading and reliability followed by achievement while personal growth was ranked as 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 Herzbergs ranking in predicting the first predictor for motivators and hygiene whereby achievement was ranked as the first motivator factor in Herzbergs ranking and status was ranked first under hygiene factors. Moreover, in this study, 13 dimensions of Herzbergs job satisfaction dimensions 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 satisfaction To ascertain whether decision-making style has an effect on job satisfaction, it was necessary 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 the decision-making styles of the University Management on the Job Satisfaction among the academic staff. As the results of the path analysis were illustrated in Figure 6, Decision-making styles had a significant positive direct effect on the job satisfaction (b 0.71, po0.01) and there was zero direct effect of the management style on the job satisfaction (b 0.01, po0.960), while it was indirectly affected by mediating the decision-making styles (b 0.73, po0.01).
No. Motivator factors 1 2 3 4 5 Hygiene factors 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 Indicators Loading and reliability
Advance Achievement Work itself Responsibility Personal growth Supervisor Peers Work condition Security Peers 2 Salary Supervision Policy
0.82 0.61 0.58 0.45 0.31 0.83 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.59 0.46 0.42
Note: Personal life, status, recognition and subordinate (not significant)
Table III. Ranking indicators for Herzbergs theory of job satisfaction at research university
IJEM 26,7
e1
Structural equation model of management & decision-making styles and job satisfaction at rsearch university 0.71 Participativedecision-making 0.67 e2 Leadershipmotivation 0.57 e3 Controlautonomy 0.73 0.59 e4 e5 e6 e7 Directive 0.72 Analytic 0.74 Conceptual 0.79 Behavioral 0.77 0.85 0.86 0.89 e11 0.71 0.54 Decision-making styles 0.82 0.75
0.84 Management styles 0.00 e10
634
Figure 6. Structural equation modelling for influence of management and decisionmaking style on job satisfaction at the research university
CMIN/df=1.94 2=46.7 df=24 GFI=0.95 AGFI=0.91 CFI=0.98 TLI=0.97 IFI=0.98 NFI=0.96 RMSEA=0.06 e8 e9
0.55 0.49 0.74 Motivators Job 0.98 0.97 satisfaction Hygiene
13. Summary The results of the path analysis showed that the university decision-making styles had a direct effect and impact on the academic staff job satisfaction, where the effect could either be positive or negative. In addition, the results also showed that the university managers or top administrators personal behaviour and thinking domain reflected their decision-making style. Furthermore, the university management style did not have any direct effect on the staff job satisfaction, however, it did have an indirect effect by mediating decision-making style, which showed that the management elements, such as leadership, communication, motivation, decisions, goals and control were properly used by the management and accepted by their academic staff. In addition, it did not have any influence or effect on the academic staff job satisfaction and it only affected and influenced the academic staff job satisfaction when it connected or mediated the decision-making style. Additionally, other studies conducted showed that the management practices, such as leadership, communication and decision-making process had a great impact on the employees satisfaction in performing their job (Rahim, Shukor and Ilias, 2003). In sum, it can be concluded that the university management and decisions always have a strong impact on the academic staff job satisfaction. Thus, the decisions of the management are based on their cognitions, individualities and personalities. 14. Justification The dominance of the analytic decision-making style can be a good reason to control the situation in the Malaysian context whereby the Ministry is concerned with the university ranking, especially, as this particular research university is the premier Malaysian University. In addition, public and research universities in Malaysia have been guided, supported and sponsored by the government in terms of providing teaching and learning materials and equipment to upgrade the higher institutional system. 15. Implications The 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
governmental involvement in the policies can jeopardize the academic staff autonomy, cause dissatisfaction and academic staff attrition because the management that practices this style is considered to be high ambiguity tolerant, task focused and analytically minded people. They rely heavily on abstractions and instrumental logic, and tend to go over all aspects of a problem thoroughly. They also carefully acquire and organize large amounts of data, consider every aspect of a given problem and acquire information by careful analysis. In contrast, this style can be beneficial in producing quality works of the academic staff, discipline and excellence because if the management using this style presented a remedy, their solution is likely to be comprehensive, detailed and very thorough. They may also be innovative if the analysis turns up noble information or supports noble reasoning. In fact, the success and/or failure of an organization may be directly linked to its leaders or managements decisions (Yukl, 1994). Therefore, it is advisable for the Ministry to consider the involvement of the academic staff in the decision-making process at the top level so that they can feel a part of the system, as, academically speaking, the university management should allow the decisions to be debated openly and transparently and allow the professionals to speak out openly and honestly in the interest and for the benefit of the university and the staff as a whole. Similarly, the academic staff should work hard and be engaged in doing research and publications and not rely solely on teaching. Thus, in this global village where there are many challenges facing educational settings, such as the intervention of technology, parents and market expectations, with the pressure from every nation and government on higher institutions of learning to produce excellent human capital for national development, academic staff as well as teachers are forced to improve their abilities and capabilities; to publish and conduct research to meet all these expectations, not merely depending on teaching and old notes that will soon become obsolete and antiquated. In this respect, the results have implications for positive and good management and decision-making styles of the university management in Malaysia that can increase the level of academic staff job satisfaction. It suggests that university management be participative in their decisions. Two-way communication is needed between the management and academic staff to create a conducive and friendly environment. Last but 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 or supervisor with their subordinates, peers, working condition and security as well as opportunity for academic staff advancement and promotion. It suggests that future research replicates the theory, model and tests, as huge samples are available including those from other universities as well as private universities in Malaysia. 16. Discussion and conclusion It was found in Fauziah and Anizah (2003) that Malaysians were reported as having a collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980/1984) and had a moderate level of job satisfaction in some public universities. These findings support the overwhelming results of the present research on the academic job satisfaction in public universities. The moderate satisfaction of the academic staff in the previous studies and more than moderate satisfaction in the present one shows a serious effort by the government to change the level of academic staff job satisfaction from moderate to high satisfaction.
IJEM 26,7
636
Furthermore, the relationship between the organizational climate and the employee job satisfaction, using some of Herzbergs job satisfaction factors, showed that, Organizational climate assessments are accepted today as a vital component in helping organizations to determine employees perceptions and feelings on their work groups, leadership, work environment, decision-making, job satisfaction, etc. of departments/faculties and the universities at large. This finding also supported the present conclusion in which hygiene factors were the predictors for job satisfaction as perceived by the academic staff at the research university. In terms of salary, the research of Santhapparaj and Alam (2005) on the job satisfaction among the academic staff in private Universities in Malaysia found that salary 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 of promotion with job satisfaction while being contradictory in terms of salary. In addition, the findings of Amzat and Idris (2011) indicated inconsistency, in as much as the relationship with subordinates was ranked as the leading factor for job satisfaction while the advancement factor was ranked as the leading factor in the present research, even though it was supported in their other findings where advancement was ranked as the leading factor for job satisfaction under the motivator factors or intrinsic factors. Chimanikire et al. (2007) noted that in Zimbabwe, the majority of the academic staff were overwhelmed with workload, inadequate salaries and allowances as reported by Zainudin et al. (2010); likewise a research by Kyriacou et al. (2003) also reported that salary, workload and status were factors that led to the decline of the number of teaching staff early in the profession. While Darmody and Smyth (2010), as well as Tang et al. (2004), and Sloan (2002), reported that salary and money were the leading factors for the workers job satisfaction (Tan and Amna, 2011). The findings of these studies are not consistent with the present findings in which salary was not the leading factor for the job satisfaction of academic staff. Moreover, as was proven worldwide, especially in Asia and Africa, as well as in the USA, salary has become one of the factors that leads to low motivation and job satisfaction in academic settings in developed countries around the world (Dinham and Scott, 1998, 2000; Scott and Dinham, 2001; Van den Berg, 2002; Vandenberghe and Huberman, 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 a predictor for work satisfaction. This relationship was not found in the present study in Malaysia between salary and job satisfaction, instead, advancement, relationship with peers and management were found to have positive relationships with the job satisfaction 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 of work nature, supervision and advancement but contradictory in terms of salary. It was also partially supported and consistent with a research done in Nigeria by Adelabu (2005) where a relationship was found between career advancement and promotion with job satisfaction, however, it was inconsistent with the present research as well as a research by Akpofure et al. (2006) on job satisfaction among educators in colleges of education in southern Nigeria, in terms of salary, status and allowances. In addition, it was consistent with the report and suggestion from Baloch (2009) and Kosteas (2010) on promotion leading to job satisfaction of academic staff.
In comparing the present research findings with other Asian countries, a high degree of consistency was found in terms of the extrinsic motivation; in Bangladesh, it was found in a research by Shamima (2006) that extrinsic factors were the major dissatisfaction factors whereas career development, growth, supervision and management were perceived by the staff to be the leading factors for job satisfaction. However, this was found to be inconsistent with the relationship to salary. In addition, the present research findings seem to be strongly supported by the research of Tom (2007) in the USA on job satisfaction among the teaching staff concerning issues related to interpersonal relationships, policy/administration, supervision/technical and working conditions and salary while some were slightly satisfied. Furthermore, the present research findings strongly support and are consistent with (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 advancement and development, such as working with children, developing warm personal relationships with children, the intellectual challenges of teaching, autonomy and independence, and having the opportunity to try out new ideas. Similarly, it strongly supports and is consistent with Jaime and Jamie (1999) who reported conclusively on relationships found between the achievement, advancement, recognition, responsibility and the work itself and job satisfaction of teaching staff, and also from a research conducted by Campbell and Flinders (2004) in Queensland in terms of promotion, achievement, improvement, teacher accomplishment, recognition and developing a strong relationship as well as inculcating a sense of belonging amongst the staff. Correspondingly, it supports a research on job satisfaction in the UK by Shields and Ward (2001) in which the impact of promotion and training opportunities were found on job satisfaction as against the workload or salary (Keith and John, 2006). Looking into the relationships between job satisfaction and the management or supervisor and teaching staff development, the present research found it to be supportive of a research in Scotland by Nick et al. (2006) in which five motivator factors or intrinsic factors were found to have relationships with the teaching staff, namely: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) recognition; relationship with their departmental colleagues; support from their subject mentor; support from other colleagues in the department; and their relationship with pupils in the classroom.
In addition, the present research findings seem to be consistent with a research recently done in Ireland by Darmody and Smyth (2010) in which the relationships with staff members and the principal in the school were the causes of stress in their working environment. This shows that salary, promotion, fringe benefits, working conditions and other related factors were significant determinants of job satisfaction. In addition, the results of their research show that salary, promotion and working condition are positively related to job satisfaction. The results of their research are similar to the results of this
IJEM 26,7
638
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 predictor of job satisfaction in Asia, Africa and the USA while from the selected university in Malaysia, its contribution and dominance is very low concerning job satisfaction in the educational working sector. For the decision-making style, there is a scarcity of research in Malaysia using Rowes theory (of decision-making style) and Likerts management style theory in the school and university context. In terms of using Herzbergs theory of hygiene and motivator, much research has been conducted in schools and universities using Herzbergs theory of job satisfaction. However, to my knowledge, the application of all Herzbergs 16 factors of job satisfaction is scarce; rather they tend to use five to 12 factors only. In this sense, job satisfaction of the academic staff in this research university was maintained and credit should go to the Malaysian Ministry of Education for their great efforts in reforming the educational system (in Malaysia) to meet the worlds new educational standards and development. The Ministry has given tremendous financial support to the public universities, especially the five research universities in terms of: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) infrastructure; development; research grants; students scholarships; and fellowships and loans.
Many academic programmes, activities and projects have been conducted and provided by the University through the Ministry of Education to support teaching and learning in the Malaysian educational system. Hopefully, the financial support given by the government to the institutions of higher learning are well utilized by the public and research universities as well as the academic staff in improving themselves because their improvement will lead to the production of quality students to meet the markets demand, parents expectations and human capital for the national development programme. 17. Summary of the significant findings The results of this study have shown that the university managers at a research university in Malaysia tend to be analytical in making decisions. In addition, the participative decision-making style has become a major concern, and, accordingly, was proposed by the academic staff for the university managers to adopt. In relation to job satisfaction, the research has proven the importance of hygiene or intrinsic factors on teaching staff serving with the teaching profession and has sent a serious message to the university authority and policy makers in Malaysia to look into the issues related to salary, management, supervision, policy, security, status, relationship with peers and personal life development, as it analytically predicts academic staff job satisfaction in this university. Furthermore, the research has elucidated interesting findings. It is revealed that the decision-making styles of the university management in the Malaysian research university have a direct effect on the academic staff job satisfaction while the
university management style has indirectly affected academic job satisfaction through the university decision-making style. Thus, the university management style determines their decision style, which controls job satisfaction:
.
Further research is needed on university leadership styles in Malaysia and their effect on university academic performance and ranking. In Malaysia, today, it is witnessed that the university teaching staff numbers are seriously declining as the staff are resigning from their teaching profession because of certain policies imposed by the university management in order to uplift the academic standard of the university to meet the world university ranking. With these crises and fallouts, further research is recommended to examine the impact of these policies on the declining trend of academics and further university development in Malaysia. Further research is considered to be essential to identify the current government involvement in the university management and policy and its practical effects on the academic policy. Further research also needs to be conducted to competently establish a standard benchmark on the performance of the five Malaysian research universities in terms of management, students performance outcomes and their marketability.
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: evidence from 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 among educators in colleges of education in southern Nigeria, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 1094-8. Amzat, H.I. and Idris, A.R. (2011), Lecturers satisfaction towards university management and decision-making styles in some Malaysian public universities, ScienceDirect Procedia 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 level educators, 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 decision participation in educational organizations: the value of a multi-domain evaluative approach, 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) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
IJEM 26,7
640
Bohrnstedt, G. and Knoke, D. (1994), Statistics for Social Data Analysis, 3rd ed., FE Peacock Publishers, Inc, Itasca, IL, ISBN-10: 087581381X, ISBN-13: 978-0875813813. Boreham, N., Gray, P. and Blake, A. (2006), Job satisfaction among newly qualified teachers in Scotland, TLRP&ESRC, paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Warwick, Coventry, September. Boulgarides, D.J. and Cohen, W.A. (2001), Leadership style vs leadership tactics, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59-73. Campbell, A.R. (2001), Teacher Occupational Satisfaction in Non-government Schools on SouthEast Queensland, unpublished doctoral thesis, UNE, Armidale. Campbell, A. and Flindios, M. (2004), Enhancing teacher occupational satisfaction: the integral 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 tertiary institutions 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. 1 No. 4, pp. 512-32. Crossman, A. and Abou-zaki, B. (2003), Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese banking staff, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4. Crossman, A. and Harris, P. (2006), Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers, Educational Management Administration Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 29-46. Darmody, M. and Smyth, E. (2010), Job satisfaction and occupational stress among primary school teachers and school principals in Ireland, ESRIA report compiled by the ESRI on Behalf 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 of teachers relative and relational effectiveness, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 169-92. Denizer, D. (2008), Accidents at work and work related health problems by sex, status, age and severity, 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 Working Conditions, 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 executive satisfaction, 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 of teacher 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.), On Understanding Poverty, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 85-110. Evans, L. (2001), Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction and motivation among education professionals: re-examining the leadership dimension, Educational Management Administration, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 291-306.
Evdokia, K. (2009), How satisfied are Greek EFL teachers with their work? Investigating the motivation 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 the Annual 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 a causal model, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 469-46. Glisson, C.V. and Durick, M. (1988), Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment 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 in education, MPRA Paper No. 29667, posted 31, available at: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/29667/ (accessed March 2011). Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), Motivation through design of work, Organizational Behavior 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, 5th ed., Printice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hall, J.W. (1972), A comparison of Halpin and crofts organizational climates and Likert and Likerts 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), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Ian, H.F.B. (2005), The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment among high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the western in the western cape, mini-thesis, Degree of Magister Artium, Department of Industrial Psychology, Faculty of Economic and Management Science, University of the Western Cape, Western Cape. Jaafar, M., Ramayah, T. and Zainal, Z. (2006), Work satisfaction and work performance: how project managers in Malaysia perceived it, a paper presented at Academy of World Business, Marketing & Management Development Conference, Business across Borders in the 21st century, Paris. Jaime, X.C. and Jamie, C. (1999), A comparative analysis of Ohio agriculture teachers level of job satisfaction, 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. and Locke, 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 Through Innovation 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, academic tenure and earnings, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 253-79.
IJEM 26,7
642
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 Economy and Society, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 174-94. Kyriacou, S., Kunc, R., Stephens, P. and Hultgren, A. (2003), Student teachers expectations of 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 workfamily conflict on social work and human service worker job satisfaction and organisational 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 Australias schools 2007, ACER & Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 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 and Occupations, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 337-66. Miller, K.I. and Monge, R.R. (1986), Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analytic review, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 727-53. Mittler, J.E. (2002), Its management quality that matters-not style?, Journal for Quality and Participation, 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 UK universities, 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 measures of well- being versus job satisfaction and organisational commitment, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 415-41. Pezeshki, R.G., Golshiri, E.Z. and Zamani-Miandashti, N. (2008), Investigation of leadership style correlates affecting the staffs job satisfaction of Jihad-e-keshavarzi in yazd, Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, Vol. 10, Supplementary Issue, pp. 421-9. Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968), Managerial attitudes and performance, Homewood, IrwinDorsey, IL. Rahim, A.R., Shukor, A S. and Llias, S. (2003), Truths and Myths of Management practices and job satisfaction among middle level management at public institution of higher learning in Malaysia, 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 people in a nursing home, Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 512-7.
Rice, E.M. and Schnider, G.T. (1994), A decade of teachers empowerment: an empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980-1991, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 737-57. Rowe, A.J. and Boulgarides, J.D. (1994), Managerial Decision Making, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rowe, A.J. and Davis, S.A. (1996), Intelligent Information Systems: Meeting the Challenge of the Knowledge 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 Resource Management, 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 private universities 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 managers in 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 and school 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 of discontent, 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 Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 609-15. Shamima, T. (2006), Job satisfaction among female teachers: a study on primary schools in Bangladesh, M.Phil thesis, Department of Administration and Organization Theory University of Bergen, Bergen. Shane, S., Blake, L.K. and James, K.S. (2004), Respiratory therapists attitudes about participative decision making: relationship between managerial decision-making style and job satisfaction, Respiratory Care, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 917-25. Shann, M. (1998), Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 67-73. Sharma, M. and Ghosh, A. (2006), Perception of organizational climate and job satisfaction 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 in England: 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.
IJEM 26,7
644
Sirin, E.F. (2009), Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction and attitude among research assistants in schools of physical education and sports, Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 85-104. Sloan, A. (2002), The jury is in: greed isnt good, Newsweek, 24 June, p. 37. Souza-Poza, A. and Souza-Poza, A.A. (2000), Taking another look at the gender/job satisfaction paradox, Kyklos, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 135-52. Suthukar, K. (1997), Salary increase wont stop brain drain, STAR, 3 July, p. 14. Tan, T-H. and Amna, W. (2011), Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory and job satisfaction in the Malaysian retail sector: the mediating effect of love of money, Asian Academy of Management 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 money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 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 of Educational 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, South African 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 affective experiences, 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 work commitment among lecturers: a case of UITM kelantan, Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 45-59. Zembylas, M. (2004), Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 357-74. Zembylas, M. and Papanastasiou, E. (2006), Sources of teacher job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in Cyprus, Compare, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 229-47. Zigarelli, M.A. (1996), An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools research, The Journal 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 of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 87-99.
Miller, L.E. and Smith, K.L. (1983), Handling non-response issues, Journal of Extension, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 45-50. Nicoletti, C. (2006), Differences in job dissatisfaction across Europe, ISER Working Paper No. 2006-42, ISER, University of Essex, Colchester, September. Seidou, M. (1999), IIUM lecturer participation in academic adminstrative and university policy decision-making, unpublished master thesis, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the digree of master of Education, Kulliyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences. International Islamic University, Kulliyah. About the authors Ismail Hussein Amzat is currently a Lecturer at Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, Malaysia. Ismail Hussein Amzat is the corresponding 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.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Logistics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Logistics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

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

Datuk Abdul Rahman Idris

SEMs of decision-making styles 617

SEMs of decision-making styles 619

Figure 1. The conceptual framework for the study

SEMs of decision-making styles 621

SEMs of decision-making styles 623

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

(2) (3) (4) (5)

SEMs of decision-making styles 625

SEMs of decision-making styles 627

N 2,443 1,760 1,683 175 300 1,800 187

% 100 72.04 68.89 7.16 12.27 73.67 7.65

Total 2,443 1,760 1,683 175 300 1,800 187

Source: Human Resource Division (HRD, 2007)

Table I. Academic staff population at research university

SEMs of decision-making styles 629

IFI 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.93

TLI 0.90 0.97 0.93 0.91

CFI 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.93

(4) (5) (6)

Measurement model of decision-making styles for research university

SEMs of decision-making styles 631

Measurement model of management styles for research university

e2 e3 e4 0.16 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 0.30 e15 e16

0.17 0.74 0.64 0.57 0.67

0.67 0.59 0.51 0.68

Lecturing at the university provides an opportunity for promotion. 0.20

I am responsible for planning my daily lessons. 0.10

Measurement model of hygiene factors for job satisfaction at research university

I get along well with my colleagues at the university. 0.58

Working conditions at the university are comfortable. 0.51

0.71 0.78 0.42

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

I try to be aware of the policies of the university. 0.46

Lecturers income at my university is adequate for normal expenses. 0.35

I am well paid as a lecturer in proportion to my ability.

Lecturing at the university provides me with financial security.

0.46 0.76 0.83 Hygiene 3

SEMs of decision-making styles 633

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

0.84 Management styles 0.00 e10

0.55 0.49 0.74 Motivators Job 0.98 0.97 satisfaction Hygiene

SEMs of decision-making styles 635

SEMs of decision-making styles 637

SEMs of decision-making styles 639

SEMs of decision-making styles 641

SEMs of decision-making styles 643

SEMs of decision-making styles 645

Вам также может понравиться