FACTORS AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES IN A PUBLIC

INSTITUTION

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY
SEDA UNUTMAZ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

DECEMBER 2014

Approval of the thesis:

FACTORS AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES IN A

PUBLIC INSTITUTION

Submitted by SEDA UNUTMAZ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Industrial Engineering Department, Middle East
Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Glbin Dural
Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science
Prof. Dr. Murat Kksalan
Head of Department, Industrial Engineering
Prof. Dr. Canan ilingir
Supervisor, Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Canan Sepil
Industrial Engineering Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Canan ilingir
Industrial Engineering Dept., METU
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ylmaz stner
Political Science and Public Administration Dept., METU
Asist. Prof. Dr. Sakine Batun
Industrial Engineering Dept., METU
D Ticaret Uzman Onur Ataolu
T.C. Ekonomi Bakanl

Date: 04.12.2014sd

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Seda UNUTMAZ

Signature

iv

ABSTRACT

FACTORS AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES

IN A PUBLIC INSTITUTION

Unutmaz, Seda
M.S., Department of Industrial Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Canan ilingir

December 2014, 129 pages

In this study, it is aimed to determine important factors that affect the job satisfaction of
employees working in a particular public institution and to investigate to what extent
the public institution satisfies its employees. For this purpose, after extensive literature
research, two different and subsidiary surveys, which are Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) Survey and Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), are conducted on the subject
employee group. It is assumed that the subject employee group, which consists of
assistant experts and experts, is representative for the whole employees in the
institution.

Expert Choice 11 and SPSS 21.0 software programs are used respectively for analysis
of data collected from AHP Survey and Job Satisfaction Survey. By using AHP
method, the important factors for job satisfaction are determined. Then, by using JSS,
the satisfaction levels of main factors and sub-factors are determined. In addition,
effects of demographic properties of participant on both overall satisfaction level and
factor satisfaction levels are tested by using variance analysis techniques (ANOVA,
MANOVA & Non Parametric Test).

In conclusion, results of both surveys are discussed in order to light the way for the
future studies for the improvement of job satisfaction of employees in the public
institution.

Moreover,

findings

about

satisfaction

level

of

employees

recommendations for the institution are presented in the report.

Keywords: Job Satisfaction, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Job Satisfaction Survey.

vi

and

BR KAMU KURUMUNDA ALIANLARIN MEMNUNYETN

ETKLEYEN FAKTRLER

Unutmaz, Seda
Yksek Lisans, Endstri Mhendislii Blm
Tez Yneticisi: Prof. Dr. Canan ilingir
Aralk 2014, 129 sayfa
Bu tezin amac, bir kamu kuruluunda alan kiilerin i tatminini etkileyen faktrlerin
tespit edilmesi ve bu faktrlerin kurum tarafndan hangi lde karladnn
belirlenmesidir. Bu amala, kapsaml literatr aratrmas sonucunda, alanlara
srasyla Analitik Hiyerari Sreci (AHS) ve Tatmini Anketi uygulanmtr. Uzman
ve uzman yardmclarndan oluan rneklem grubunun, kurumdaki tm alanlar
temsil ettii varsaym yaplmtr.
Analitik Hiyerari Sreci ve Tatmini anketlerinin uygulanmas sonucunda toplanan
veriler Expert Choice ve SPSS yazlm programlar kullanlarak analiz edilmitir.
AHS metodu ile i tatminini etkileyen faktrler belirlenmitir. Daha sonra, i tatmini
anketi ile faktrlerin tatmin edilme seviyesi belirlenmitir. Ayrca, katlmclarn
demografik zelliklerinin; genel i tatmine ve faktr baznda i tatmine etkisi, varyans
analiz yntemleri ile (ANOVA-MANOVA-Parametrik Olmayan Analiz) test edilmitir.

vii

Aratrmann sonucunda, her iki anketin sonular alanlarn i tatminini gelitirmek

iin ileride yaplacak almalara k tutmak iin tartlmtr. Ayrca, raporda
alanlarn i tatmini dzeyi ile ilgili bulgular ve kurum iin tavsiyeler yer almtr.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tatmini, Analitik Hiyerari Sreci, Tatmini Anketi

viii

To my dear family

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Canan ilingir
for her invaluable guidance, patient, trust, encouragements, advices and insight during
the entire study.

I would also like to thank the respected committee members, for accepting to participate
in committee and their valuable comments and suggestions.

I would like to give my appreciation to the cooperation and the support of management
and employees of the institution participating in the study.

Also, thanks to my colleagues for their contribution and moral support throughout my
thesis period.

Sincere thanks to my family, especially my dear mother Filiz Unutmaz, my dear father
Fuat Unutmaz, and my dear brother Yiit Unutmaz for their love and support to me. I
could not have finished this study without them by my side.

Finally, I would also like to present my special thanks to my dearest husband, M. Caner
Ulukaya, for his love, support, patience, encouragements and being with me whenever I
need since the beginning of my MSc Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ V
Z ............................................................................................................................. VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... X
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ XI
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ XIV
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. XVI
CHAPTERS
1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
1.1.

Main Context ............................................................................................ 1

1.2.

Problem Definition ...................................................................................2

1.3.

Structure of Thesis ...................................................................................3

2.LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 5

2.1.

Job Satisfaction ......................................................................................... 5

2.2.

Theories of Job Satisfaction ...................................................................10

2.2.1. Major Content Theories ........................................................................12

2.2.1.1 Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs ..........................................12
2.2.1.2 The ERG Theory ...........................................................................14
2.2.1.3 McGregors Theory X & Theory Y...............................................15
2.2.1.4 Herzberg-Two Factor Theory ........................................................ 15
2.2.1.5 Need for Achievement and Basic Needs Theory .......................... 16
2.2.2. Process Theories of Job Satisfaction .................................................... 17
2.2.2.1 Expectancy Theory ........................................................................17
2.2.2.2 Equity Theory ................................................................................19
xi

2.2.2.3 Discrepancy Theory.......................................................................20

2.2.2.4 Job Characteristic Theory ..............................................................20
2.2.2.5 Goal-Setting Theory ......................................................................21
2.2.3. Other Relevant Theories .......................................................................21
2.3.

Factors that affect Job Satisfaction .......................................................22

2.3.1. Environmental Factors ..........................................................................23

2.3.1.1

Working Conditions .....................................................................23

2.3.1.2

Self-Improvement.........................................................................23

2.3.1.3

Reward .........................................................................................24

2.3.1.4

Supervision ...................................................................................24

2.3.1.5

Co-worker.....................................................................................24

2.3.1.6

Communication ............................................................................25

2.3.2.

Personal Factors ...............................................................................25

2.3.2.1

Gender ..........................................................................................25

2.3.2.2

Educational Level .........................................................................25

2.3.2.3

Seniority .......................................................................................26

2.4.

Measurement of Job Satisfaction ..........................................................26

2.5.

Analytic Hierarchy Process ...................................................................28

2.6.

Group Size in DecisionMaking Problems ...........................................32

3.METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS....................................................................35

3.1.

Identification of Factors .........................................................................36

3.2.

Description of Factors ............................................................................38

3.3.

AHP Methodology ..................................................................................41

3.3.1. Classification of the Factors..................................................................42

3.3.2. Preparation and Execution of AHP Survey ..........................................46
3.3.3. Results of AHP Survey .........................................................................47
3.4.

Methodology of Job Satisfaction Survey ..............................................51

3.4.1. Preparation and Execution of Job Satisfaction Survey .........................51

3.4.2. Results of Job Satisfaction Survey ........................................................53
3.4.3. Demographic Findings ..........................................................................53
3.4.4. Mean Values of Job Satisfaction Factors ..............................................55
3.4.5. Normality Tests .....................................................................................58

xii

3.4.6. Findings about Effects of Demographic Factors, Gender, Seniority, &

Educational Level ........................................................................................... 61
4.DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................71
4.1.

Discussion about Main Factors ............................................................. 72

4.1.1. Opportunities ........................................................................................ 74

4.1.2. Self-Improvements................................................................................76
4.1.3. Internal Group Dynamics......................................................................77
4.1.4. Working Conditions ..............................................................................79
5.CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 83
5.1.

Limitations .............................................................................................. 86

5.1.

Future Studies ......................................................................................... 86

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................87
APPENDICES
A.AHP QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 95
B.JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................... 107
C.NORMALITY TESTS FOR SUB-FACTORS ................................................. 113
D.NON-PARAMETRIC TESTS FOR SUB-FACTORS .....................................119
E.NON-PARAMETRIC TESTS FOR MAIN FACTORS ..................................125
F.PERCENT DISSATISFACTION RATIO ........................................................ 127

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 3.1 Factors Determined Through the Literature Research and the Interviews ..... 38
Table 3.2 Classification of Factors ................................................................................. 44
Table 3.3 Frequencies of Demographic Variables .......................................................... 54
Table 3.4 Mean Values and Standart Deviation of Main Factors ............................... 56
Table 3.5 Mean Values of Sub Factors ....................................................................... 57
Table 3.6 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Gender Groups .................... 59
Table 3.7 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Educational Level Groups... 59
Table 3.8 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Seniority Groups ................. 59
Table 3.9 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Gender Groups ........................ 60
Table 3.10 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Educational Level Groups.....60
Table 3.11 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Seniority Groups ................... 61
Table 3.12 Results of ANOVA Interdependent Variable and Total Satisfaction ........... 62
Table 3.13 Results of MANOVA for Gender And Main Satisfaction Factors ............... 64
Table 3.14 Results of MANOVA for Educational Level and Main Satisfaction
Factors......................................................................................................................65
Table 3.15 Results of MANOVA for Seniority and Main Satisfaction Factors ............. 65
Table 3.16 Mean Values of Dependent Main Factors for Educational Level Groups .... 66
Table 3.17 Mean Values of Dependent Main Factors for Gender Groups ..................... 67
Table 3.18 Post Hoc Analysis of Main Factors in Manova for Seniority Variable ........ 68
Table 3.19 Mean Values of Sub-Factors As Dependent Variable for Gender As
Independent Variable ............................................................................................... 69
Table 3.20 Post Hoc Analysis of Sub-Factors in Manova for Seniority Variable .......... 70
Table 4.1 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Opportunities.......... 75
Table 4.2 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Self-Improvement...77
Table 4.3 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Internal Group
Dynamics ............................................................................................................... 78
xiv

Table 4.4 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Working

Conditions..........................................................................................................80
Table B.1 Job Satisfaction Questionnaire ..................................................................... 108
Table C.1 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Gender Groups........................... 113
Table C.2 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Educational Level Groups ......... 115
Table C.3 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Seniority Groups ........................ 117
Table D.1 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Gender" in terms of "Sub Factors" .... 119
Table D.2 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Educational Level" in terms of "Sub
Factors" .................................................................................................................. 121
Table D.3 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Seniority" in terms of "Sub Factors" . 123
Table E.1 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Gender" in terms of Main Factors ..... 125
Table E.2 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Educational Level" in terms of Main
Factors ................................................................................................................... 125
Table E.3 Results of Non-Parametric Test for "Seniority" in terms of Main Factors .. 125
Table F.1 Percent of Dissatisfaction Ratios of "Main Factors" and "Sub-Factors"...... 128

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 AHP Pairwise Positive Reciprocal Comparison Matrices.32
Figure 3.1 Hierarchy Tree of AHP..45
Figure 3.2 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of Main
Factors ...48
Figure 3.3 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of
Opportunities ...48
Figure 3.4 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of SelfImprovement .....49
Figure 3.5 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of Internal
Group Dynamics in The Department ....50
Figure 3.6 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of Working
Conditions .....50
Figure A.1 Template of Web Based AHP Questionnaire...97
Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire98
Figure B.1 Web Based Job Satisfaction Questionnaire.109

xvi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Main Context

Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). It is also defined
by Newstrom (2011) as a set of favorable or unfavorable feelings and emotions which
employees view with their work (Mahmood, 2011).
Work is one of the most important aspects in peoples lives in todays highly
competitive corporate environment. Since people spend about most of their waking
hours at work, employee job satisfaction gains more importance in their working lives.
Therefore, job satisfaction plays a vital role for efficient working environment. In
accordance with that, influencing factors of job satisfaction are essential for improving
the well-being of a large part of our society (Schneider and Vaught, 1993). Therefore,
job satisfaction, as an important academic concept, has been popular in wide range of
fields such as social psychology.
According to Miner (1992), job satisfaction is a significant issue in running of
institutions and one of the main indicators of how healthy an organization is. Thus,
organizations attach great importance to the job satisfaction issue. Satisfaction levels of
employees are important for organizations, since satisfied workers contribute to
effectiveness and long-term success of the organizations. The effectiveness and
productivity of an organization depends on its staff and "a happy worker is an effective
one. It is not possible for development of an organization without considering
exploiting of the staffs capabilities and improving their working conditions.
Organizations consisting of highly satisfied worker are most probably more successful
1

than other organizations (Baar, 2011). For this kind of organizations, it is not difficult
to get workers having desired qualifications.
Qualified, productive, and happy worker provides more to its organization to achieve
success.

1.2. Problem Definition

Employee job satisfaction is considered as a critical success factor for organizations.
Numbers of researches on this topic have been conducted all around the world. In
recent decades, this issue has aroused interest in Turkey as well. Unfortunately, it is
observed that there is not enough research made in Turkish major governmental
institutions about job satisfaction. Non-profit public organizations are essential for the
country and its economy. Therefore, the issue is significantly important for public
institutions. For these reasons, one of the fundamental public institutions is selected for
this study on measuring job satisfaction.
The aim of this study is to determine the most important factors that affect the job
satisfaction of employees working in a particular public institution and to investigate to
what extent the public institution satisfies its employees about these prominent factors.
In this study, both general job satisfaction and segmented job satisfaction factors are
being investigated in terms of demographic factors.
Job satisfaction is a crucial issue for the development and better functioning of key
governmental organizations and the country as a whole, and also for the future
expectations of the well-educated and qualified work force of the country. The public
institution where this study is performed is a central governmental institution, subject to
central government budget applications and limitations. This institution implements
fundamental economic policies and activities mainly related to trade and investment in
order to contribute to the national economy and development of the social welfare.
Also, it has a critical responsibility for developing and implementing the policies for the
coordination of international economic relations by means of diplomatic missions.
Therefore, the job satisfaction is worth to be investigated and very important to be kept
at high level in this kind of institutions. The intention of this study is to recommend the
2

public institution to take necessary steps to keep the employees satisfied with their work
and other work-related factors for the success of the institution.

1.3. Structure of Thesis

The thesis is consisted of five chapters: After the introduction chapter, Chapter 2
summarizes explanations in the literature about job satisfaction concept, job satisfaction
theories, determinants of job satisfaction and analytic hierarchy process. Chapter 3
consists of the methodology followed through the analysis of the problem and the
results based on the statistical analyses that are reported in detail. Chapter 4 includes
discussions relate with findings and existent studies in the literature. Finally, in Chapter
5, is about conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for the future. In addition,
tables, software program applications and results about the thesis can be found in the
Appendices of the report.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.

Job Satisfaction

The most-used definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976) as a pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences
(A. Judge &Klinger, 2008). Locke, who is the leading academician among many
researchers, states that there are important points in above definition of job satisfaction:
an emotional state implied that there is an effective component to the job satisfaction;
an appraisal process implied that there is a cognitive or evaluative component to the job
satisfactions. In other words, Lockes definition consists of three elements: effective,
cognitive and job-focused.
There is no universally accepted definition of employee satisfaction, but there are many
definitions of job satisfaction in the literature. The reason is that job satisfaction means
different things to different people, since people are affected by various different factors
including personal characteristics, needs, values, feelings and expectancies. Also, it
varies from organization to organization, since job satisfaction influencing factors such
as working environment, job characteristic, opportunities for employees and working
environment differ according to organization (Harputlu, 2014).
There are various definitions of job satisfaction as mentioned, first of all, it can be
defined as concerning ones feeling or state of mind related with the work (Chughati &
Perveen, 2013) and an employees positive attitude towards the company, co-workers
and, finally, the job (Sypniewska, 2013). When the institution meets job expectations,

the individual experience positive feelings, so, these positive emotions indicate job
satisfaction (Green, 2000).
In addition, an employee may change his/her perception based on experiences so that,
the employees perception of the organization evolve over time. Therefore, job
performance and job satisfaction depends on perception of the employees. In addition,
Spector (1997) indicates, job satisfaction data is helpful in evaluating the emotional
wellness and mental fitness of employees and so organization can use the information
to improve its structure (Concepts and Review of Related Literature, n.d.). According
to Fogarty, job satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees gain enjoyment from
their efforts in their workplace (Brunetto and Wharton, 2002). Moreover, a level of trust
develops between the employee and the organization that encourages employees to
behave cooperatively within the organization (Jone and George, 1998)
According to Zeffane (1994) and Spector (1997), most studies identified at least two
categories: environmental factors, associated with the work itself or work environment,
and personal characteristics, associated with individual attributes and characteristics
(Ellickson, 2002).
Another definition of the job satisfaction concept is the extent to which people likesatisfied- or dislike/dissatisfied with their job (Spector, 1997). In fact, job
dissatisfaction reduces individuals performance and causes some negative effects such
as low productivity, absenteeism, and quitting the job and it is hard to prevent job
dissatisfaction (Altuntas, 2014). In this context, the evaluation of individuals
assessment level that how the work environment fulfils their needs (Dawis and
Lofquist, 1984), and general attitudes of employees towards their jobs
(Wickramasinghe, 2009) are the other definitions of job satisfaction. Simply stated, the
more employees work environment fulfills their needs, values, or personal
characteristics, the greater the degree of job satisfaction (Ibrahim et al., 2012; Zaim et
al., 2012).
Some other considerable definitions are as follows: multi-disciplinary concept that
results from employees perception of their jobs according to Ivancevich, et.al (2011)
and how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs according to
6

Balzer (1990) (Zaim et al., 2012; Theron, 2010). The definitions of the job satisfaction
are more or less about personal affections. According to Yuewei Chen (2005), if the
employees have positive and pleasant feelings about the work, their attitudes to the
work are defined as job satisfaction. On the other hand, if the employees have negative
and unpleasant feelings in work, their attitudes to the work are defined as dissatisfaction
(Zhu, 2013). In this context, job satisfaction is that how much the employees like or
dislike their work and the extent how much their expectations concerning work are
fulfilled. According to Wright and Kim (2004), Job satisfaction represents an
interaction between workers and work environment and between what they want from
their jobs, what they perceive and receive. It is commonly explained using the person
environment fit paradigm or needssatisfaction model. The more a job fulfills the
workers needs, the higher their job satisfaction should be (Taylor and Westover, 2011).
According to Locke (1969), emotions that rise to job satisfaction has a three-step. First,
employees experience some elements of the work environment; second, employees use
a value standard to judge these work elements; and third, they evaluate how the
perceived work element facilitates the achievement of preferred values (Davis, 2012). If
a perceived work element provides positive emotions, this process is resulted in job
satisfaction. In this context, Hoppock (1935) described the job satisfaction as the
employees subjective reflections or subjective feelings about their working conditions
and working environment. However, elements of the work environment contradict the
value preferences; it is resulted in job dissatisfaction. Locke (1976) states that there is a
discrepancy between what the individual wants, and the importance of wanted, and
what he/she perceives as getting (Staples & Higgings, 1998). The employees balance
their satisfactions or dissatisfactions to their job and then form an overall conclusion
about the job, satisfying or not (Zhu, 2013).
Job satisfaction is a very important aspect of an employees well-being and has
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components (Saari and Judge, 2004). According to
Kaplan (2008), emotional aspect refers ones feelings regarding the job, cognitive
aspect refers ones thoughts and beliefs regarding the job, and, behavioral component
refers to people's actions with respect to the job (Zaim, et al., 2012).

According to Buitenbach and De Witte (2005), job satisfaction is a feeling of mind of

an individual like as needs, ethics and hopes. The persons assess their work regarding
the factors being considered more important by them. According to Henderson (2003),
some researchers agreed that individuals personality factor is closely related with job
satisfaction (Ibrahim, et.al, 2012).
Lockes Job Satisfaction Model (1976) is a well-known corner stone theory in the job
satisfaction literature. He uses mainly two dimensions for analyzing the job satisfaction:
job components and comfort factors. Job components include reward, interest,
challenge, autonomy, and relation with co-workers, opportunities to use abilities,
creativity, variety, self-esteem, pay, promotion, and supervision. Comfort factors
include working hours, travel time, physical surrounding, characteristics of the
enterprise and its management, fit between employee, work, and expectations in the
workplace. Lockes model is the clearest and most functional model within the job
satisfaction theories and models.
Moreover, according to Locke's Job Satisfaction Theory, job satisfaction is the extent to
which people are satisfied with outcome of the work. Workers are more satisfied with
the work if they get outcomes that are more valuable. Not only the amount but also the
type of rewards affects job satisfaction. Employees want to get desirable rewards in
return for their efforts. Satisfied workers favor the betterment of organization (Locke,
1969). Job satisfaction refers a personal attitude toward the job and it shows how well
the staffs expectations are compatible with the rewards the work (Amiri, et.al, 2010).
Oshagbemi (1999) defined job satisfaction as an affective reaction to a job that results
from the persons comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired,
anticipated, or deserved (Eker et al., 2007). Employee satisfaction is also relevant to
organizational outcomes such as commitment, extra-role behavior, turnover,
productivity, and service quality and customer satisfaction. According to Saari and
Judge (2004), there are three main streams about the job satisfaction, the first stream is
focusing on reasons of employee satisfaction, the second is about personal and
organizational outcomes and the third one is aiming to measure job satisfaction (Zaim,
et al., 2012). In this case, the outcomes such as work conditions, development

opportunities are the causes such as employee performance and environmental factors
(Staples and Higgings, 1998).
New society of employees with emerging needs has increased in 1980s, because of the
development of the working life and technology. Tichy (1983) and Handy (1985) did
researches in order to investigate the effects of the high-level technology on employees
and organizations. The later studies contribute to seek the configuration of tasks about
jobs and organizations for the development of social structure. In addition, job design
studies take technology as a variable and consequently, are in interaction between
personal, social, and organization needs. Many studies demonstrate the positive effects
on total performance of job and organization needs (Atasoy, 2004).
In the literature, researchers have divided job satisfaction into two main categories:
general satisfaction and specific satisfaction. General satisfaction, referred overall
satisfaction, defined as an overall evaluation for the job. Specific satisfaction, in other
words job facet satisfaction, is defined as an evaluation of various job aspects (Eker,
et.al, 2007). Lussier (2005) defined the job satisfaction as the employees overall
attitude to the work. However, some other studies reflect employees evaluations on
every specific aspect of their work, differing from the overall definition (Zhu, 2013).
Weiner (2000) states that job satisfaction is dependent on the nature of the job itself,
which is integrated with job challenges, autonomy, skill variety and job scope. Thus,
nature of job itself is at the top places for researchers in order to understand what makes
people to be satisfied with their jobs (Sedem, 2012).
Employee satisfaction has multidimensional construction with supervision at work,
work itself, pay and conditions, appraisal, promotion practices and co-workers
(Hackman and Oldman, 1980).
Many public organizations have become aware of the importance of job satisfaction and
but there are still too few examples about addressing this issue systematically. In order
to increase job satisfaction in public institutions, goals should be periodically measured
and monitored (Tomozevic, et.al, 2013).

In addition, job satisfaction sometimes can be confused with motivation, but job
satisfaction cannot be a substitute for motivation (Baar, 2011). However, there is an
apparent relationship between these two concepts. Highly motivated people experience
much satisfaction (Chughati & Perveen, 2013).
As a conclusion, the job satisfaction is the concept, which is affected by multiple
factors, and is understood by many dimensions. At first sight the job satisfaction is seen
as an abstract concept, however, it is actually in every aspect of the work life. It
determines the coordination of the workers in the organization. The job satisfaction
cannot be separated from the life of the work itself because it is related to the human
conditions and as mentioned above, it reflects all considerable judgments which are;
what the individual wants, and the importance of what is wanted, and what he or she
perceives as getting.

2.2. Theories of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined in the literature with several theorists according to their own
workable conditions. This part of the chapter purposes to provide a highlight of the
main theories and to give a broad perspective of the main developments in job
satisfaction over the last decades.
There are various theories attempting to explain job satisfaction in the literature, among
these theories, prominent ones are divided into two categories: content theories and
process theories. Content theories identify factors leading to job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction and suggest that job satisfaction come true when employees need for
growth and self-actualization are met by their job. Process theories attempt to describe
the interaction between variables for job satisfaction and explain job satisfaction by
looking at how well the job meets ones expectations and values. Each of two theory
groups has been explored by many researchers. Content Theories are Maslows Need
Hierarchy Theory, Aldefer-ERG, Herzbergs Two Factor Theory, McClellands Need
Theory; and process theories are Vrooms Expectancy Theory, Lockes Goal- Setting
Theory, Adams Equity Theory and Job Characteristic Theory etc.

10

As mentioned above, job satisfaction cannot be a substitute for motivation, but these are
related concepts. Some of the theories on job satisfaction are based on the motivation
theories, and, some of them can be perceived as job satisfaction theories. Therefore,
both theories of job satisfaction and motivation are strongly related with each other.
Before explaining the major content and process theories of job satisfaction, some of
the developments in the literature are mentioned in the following part.
Theories of job satisfaction start with the idea of Scientific Management or
Taylorism by Frederick W. Taylor in 1911. Frederick W. Taylor, Frank Gilbreth and
Henry L. Gantt proposed salary incentive models to motivate people at work (Luthans,
1995). According to this idea, people could be motivated only by money.
It can be said that the origin of job satisfaction studies dates back to in 1911. In that
time, Taylor began to study on employees and their job duties to develop better ways
for the work and the workers. He defined a new and different concept related with the
individual depends on industrial society and organizational structures. This new concept
was towards the individuals motivation, satisfaction, happiness and commitment,
which have a strategic importance for development of organizations and industrial
societies. In addition, Taylor was the first scientist who was concerned with time and
motion studies. According to Taylors theory, the motions of each worker should be
calculated to prevent useless movements to save time, however; a direct reward system
should be provided in order to keep the workers motivated. According to him, some
special incentives should be given such as giving the hope of rapid promotions or
advancement higher wages, and rewards by constructing better working conditions.
This is called as Scientific Management or Task Management by Taylor. As a result,
workers are encouraged to work hard for maximizing productivity thanks to scientific
management (Atasoy, 2004).
Mayo was the first scientist who studied the effect of lighting and conducted
experiments at the Hawthorne factory of the Western Electric Company in Chicago
thought that workers are not just concerned with money but with their social needs met
at work. He studied on the possible effect on employees productivity levels of
changing factors such as lighting and working conditions, by creating great basis for
11

future studies that investigate about other factors that have an impact on employees job
satisfaction. Moreover, Mayo concluded that workers are best motivated by better
communication between managers and workers (Concepts and Review of Related
Literature, n.d.).
For Taylors approach, it is not enough to explain job satisfaction procedures, since the
human factors and human feelings are not significantly important. Workers are also
dislike Taylors approach as they are only responsible for repetitive tasks to carry out
and this causes some reactions as dis-satisfied workers in the industry. In the following
years, Taylors theory was rearranged (Atasoy, 2004).
After scientific management, a new approach developed related with the theories of
socio-technical systems and job design by Louis E.Davis by the Tavistock Institute in
London around 1950. Second industrial revolution has begun with the progress in
information technology. Daviss aim was to construct a balance and a relationship
between people and technology. He dealt with autonomous groups, working together to
complete their task.
2.2.1. Major Content Theories
Content Theories mainly deal with determining the satisfaction levels of particular
needs, and their priority. These theories are still important for understanding what
motivates people at work (Luthans, 1995).
2.2.1.1 Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs
A.H. Maslow developed the hierarchy of human needs model during 1940-50s.
Maslows hierarchy of needs is leading one of the fundamental motivation theories.
According to Maslows theory, human needs divided into five categories. These
categories contain all human activities, which are Physiological or Basic Needs,
Security or Safety Needs, Belonging or Affection Needs, Esteem or Ego Needs
and Self-Actualization Needs.
According to Maslow, people tend to satisfy their needs, in a certain order of
precedence; within each level, there are needs that employees would like to be fulfilled.
For instance, when physiological and security needs are satisfied, higher needs that are
12

belonging, esteem, and self-actualization become important. In other words, the

assumption of this model is that, only feeling satisfied, to a certain level, about needs of
a lower level creates a desire to implement a need on a higher level (Sypniewska,
2013). Each employee of an organization would prefer to move to the next level after
achieving the needs in the low level, then, the old need loses its importance since it is
satisfied.
Five basic human categories of Maslows hierarchy are as follows in detail:
Physiological or Basic Needs: This is the first level of needs in the Maslows hierarchy
of needs model. In this level of hierarchy, these are necessary to be satisfied in order to
stay alive. Physiological needs consist of food, water, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep and
other factors necessary for survival.
Security or Safety Needs: These are the needs in the second level of the hierarchy,
which include self-protection, physical environment, law, limits, avoidance of harm,
stability, freedom from emotional distress and provision for the future.
Belonging or Affection Needs: This is the third level of needs that an employee would
like to achieve. These needs are friendships, companionship and grouping of people for
various activities, affection, love, family, relationships and work group etc.
Belongingness needs relate to desires for friendship and love.
Esteem or Ego Needs: The fourth level of needs consists of self-esteem, achievement,
mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige and managerial responsibility,
possession, authority and receiving respect by other employees. These types of needs
can be faced in work and social life.
Self-Actualization Needs: These are the fifth and the highest level of needs, which are
self-fulfillment, realizing personal potential, seeking personal growth and experiences,
personal growth and development. These kinds of needs represent to make the fullest of
capabilities, to develop oneself and to be creative in the work environment (Gereker,
1998).
The theory makes a significant contribution to modern business life about motivation
(Luthans, 1995) and it provides organizations to motivate their employees in the point
of view that motivated employees expected to be more satisfied. Thanks to fundamental

13

approach of this theory, an organization offer different incentives to workers in order to

fulfill needs of them and to progress up the hierarchy.
This theory has gained great acceptance due to its clarity and its structure. However,
many researches criticized the theory and additional changes that are made based on the
theory. The most prominent criticized point about the theory is related with its
assumption: after a lower level of need is fully met, a worker is motivated of satisfying
the next need up in the hierarchy. In the real life, it appears that various categories of
needs simultaneously can be satisfied and certain behavior can be aimed at higher
needs, while the lower ones have not been satisfied yet. Moreover, the other criticized
points by some researchers that the theory simplifies
According to Graham (1992), Maslows table underestimates the needs of people and it
simplifies them by grouping into five classes, and, according to this hierarchy of needs,
dissatisfaction toward a need cannot be explained.
2.2.1.2 The ERG Theory
Clayton Alderfer (1969) proposed Existence-Relatedness-Growth Theory. The ERG
theory is an extension of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs theory. Alderfer stated
that needs could be classified into three categories, rather than five and these are;
existence needs, psychological and safety needs; and relatedness needs. Existence needs
are similar to Maslow's physiological and safety need categories. Relatedness needs
involve interpersonal relationships, which are similar to Maslow's belongingness and
esteem needs. Growth needs are related with the attainment of one's potential, which are
associated with Maslow's esteem and self-actualization needs (Barnet & Simmering,
2006).
Alderfer and Maslows theories are similar, but Alderfer (1969) suggest that when an
individual is continually unable to meet upper-level needs, the lower level needs
become the major determinants of their motivation. In other words, the ERG theory
differs from the hierarchy of needs in which it suggests that lower-level needs must not
be completely satisfied before upper-level needs become satisfied (Burnet &
Simmering, 2006).

14

Alderfer also stated that individuals are motivated by moving forward and backward
between these levels (Ramprasad, 2013). In detail, according to Alderfer (1972), in the
case of relatedness satisfaction decreases, the existence desires tend to increase while
growth desires decrease (backward movement). On the other hand, in the case of
relatedness satisfaction increases, growth desires tend to increase while existence
desires decrease (forward movement).
2.2.1.3 McGregors Theory X & Theory Y
Douglas McGregor introduced Theory X and Theory Y, which contains two different
assumption sets corresponding to relationships between managers and employees (De
Cenzo & Robbins, 1994). The main assumption of Theory X is that employees dislike
work and have tendency to avoid it. This kind of people must be continuously
controlled and threatened with punishment in order to succeed the desired aims. On the
other hand, Theory Y is assumed that employees could have self-direction or selfcontrol if he/she is committed to the jobs (Gereker, 1998). According to McGregor,
Theory Y is considered as more valid and greater job involvement, autonomy and
responsibility; given employees, increase employee motivation (De Cenzo & Robbins,
1994).
2.2.1.4 Herzberg-Two Factor Theory
Frederick Herzberg (1959) has closely related with Maslow's hierarchy of human needs
theory and introduced two-factor theory of motivation.
According to Herzbergs two-factor theory of motivation, the factors are divided into
two dimensions, motivators and hygiene. According to him, certain factors that
would directly motivate employees and cause satisfaction are intrinsic factors. Herzberg
calls these factors as the motivators which give the intrinsic satisfaction, and
represent the need for self-actualization and grow. The motivators are based on personal
perceptions and internal feelings; including achievement, experience, the work itself,
responsibility, changing status through promotion and opportunity for growth and
advancement. On the other hand, hygiene factors, which lead to extrinsic satisfaction
and cause dissatisfaction, include; supervision, inter-personal relationships, recognition,

15

management, company policy and administration, promotion, salaries and benefits,

status, job security and physical working conditions (Waheed, 2011).
According to Herzbergs two-factor theory, the primary determinants of employee
satisfaction are intrinsic factors, because employees are motivated to obtain more of
them. If the motivator factors are not provided by the institution, individuals will be
dissatisfied, as, dissatisfaction is caused by hygiene factors. Absence of hygiene factors
contribute to job dissatisfaction but their presence does not contribute to satisfaction. In
other words, when the hygiene factors are not met, dissatisfaction occurs but they do
not motivate employees (Ghafoor, 2012).
According to this theory, for example, the implication of the motivator-hygiene theory
is that needs such as improvement of salary, benefits and safety, which are extrinsic
factors, will prevent employees from becoming actively dissatisfied but will not
motivate them to exert additional effort toward better performance (Barnet &
Simmering, 2006). In contrast, in order to motivate workers, managers must focus on
changing the intrinsic factors by providing to some factors such as autonomy,
opportunities, responsibility, recognition, skills and careers.
On the other hand, Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory is also criticized on some
points. Theory does not clarify the differences between the satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. These two factors, called motivators and hygiene, conclude
differently from population to population. Any factor that causes dissatisfaction may
contribute to satisfaction in any other condition or any other country. In addition, this
difference is hard to put into effect, since people have different needs and expectations.
According to researcher having opposite view, level of satisfaction cannot be predicted
with the only motivator or hygiene (Stello, 2011).
2.2.1.5 Need for Achievement and Basic Needs Theory
Need for Achievement Theory was developed by McClelland (1951, 1961) and
Atkinson (1964). Individuals needs are divided into three psychological needs. These
primary needs in this theory are the need for affiliation, for power, and for achievement.
Firstly, the need for affiliation reflects a desire to establish social relationships with
others. Secondly, the need for power is a desire to control one's environment and
16

influence others. Thirdly, the need for achievement is a desire to take responsibility, set
challenging goals, and obtain performance feedback (Garrin 2014).
This theory has been a corner stone for many empirical and experimental researches.
The main point of the theory is that when one of these needs is strong in a person, it has
the potential to motivate behavior that leads to its satisfaction. Thus, especially
managers should effort to develop an understanding of whether and to what degree their
employees have these needs, and the extent to which their jobs can be structured to
satisfy them (Higgins, 2011).
2.2.2. Process Theories of Job Satisfaction
Process theories attempt to explain job satisfaction by looking at expectancies and
values Gruenberg (1979). Within this concept, Vroom, Adams and Hackman & Oldman
became the most prominent theorists.
2.2.2.1 Expectancy Theory
Expectancy can be defined as a belief, which concerns a particular action following by
a particular outcome (Lunenburg, 2011a). An American psychologist, Edward C.
Tolman, introduced Expectancy Theory in the 1930s. This theory indicates that
human behavior is motivated by the expectations. According to the theory, an
individual decides to behave in a certain way to achieve the desired reward, motivates
himself/herself to select a specific behavior concerning what they expect the result of
that behavior (Ugah and Arua, 2011). For instance, if workers need more money to
satisfy their needs, they are assured that if they work harder; they will receive more
money.
Victor Vroom (1960s) applied the concepts of behavioral research in the following
years, which was introduced by Tolman. Expectancy Theory is a process theory of job
satisfaction and motivation. This theory describes expectations in which an individuals
effort is determined by the expected outcomes and the values of outcomes in a persons
mind (Liao, et al., 2011). In other words, the concept of expectancy is based on
individual perception and personal behavior.

17

In addition, Locke (1976) states that needs are regardless of what the person wants,
while values are subjective depending on the standards in the person's mind. It means
that while people have the same basic needs, value of the needs differs according to
peoples standards.
According to Expectancy Theory, there is strong relationship between the effort, the
performance, and rewards they get from their effort and performance. They become
motivated when they believe that strong effort will lead to a good performance, and
good performance will lead to a desired reward (Lunenburg, 2011a).
Vroom presented three basic variables in his theory: expectancies, instrumentalities, and
valances:
Expectancy: is the degree to how much people believe that putting forth effort leads to a
given level of performance.
Instrumentality: is the degree to how much people believe that a given level of
performance results in certain outcomes or rewards;
Valence: is the extent to what the expected outcomes are attractive or unattractive.
Differently from the content theories, expectancy theory recognizes complexities of
motivation process so that it is not a simplistic approach. Vrooms expectancy theory
does not provide specific suggestions about the things that motivate employees, instead
of; Vrooms theory provides a process, which reflects individual differences in work
motivation. Expectancy theory provides guidelines for enhancing employee motivation
by defining the individuals effort-to-performance expectancy and performance-toreward expectancy (Lunenburg, 2011a).
The meaning of this theory is that if workers put forth more effort and perform better at
work, then they are compensated. If discrepancies occur between expected
compensation and actual outcome, this leads employees to dissatisfaction. In other
words, if employees receive less than what they have expected or feel and believe to
have been threatening unfairly, then dissatisfaction may occur (Worrell. 2004). Thus,
managers should ensure that their employees believe high effort leading to valued
rewards (Lunenburg, 2011a).

18

In 1964, Vroom also pointed out that the job satisfaction has seven aspects, i.e. the
compensation, the supervisor, the colleagues, the working environment, the job content,
the promotion, and the organization self in his study Work and Motivation. This study
has been used by social scientists for many years (Zhu, 2013).
In addition, in the late 1960s, Porter and Lawler extend the Vroom expectancy model,
which is known as the Porter-Lawler Expectancy Model. Although the basic concept of
the Porter-Lawler model is based on Vroom's model, the Porter-Lawler model was
more complex. It indicates that increased effort does not automatically lead to improved
performance because individuals may not possess the necessary abilities needed to
achieve high levels of performance, or they may have an inadequate perception of how
to perform necessary tasks (Barnet & Simmering, 2006).
In this context, Smith, Kendall and Hulin develop Cornell Model. They suggest that job
satisfaction is feeling of individual about different facets of his/her job. This feeling
results from discrepancy of employees perception between reasonable and fair
outcomes. The concept of frame of reference refers to standards used while making
an evaluation. These standards come from experiences and expectancies of employees.
They make comparisons and judgments by using these references (Sun, 2002).
2.2.2.2 Equity Theory
Equity Theory is a motivation theory but there are important points about satisfaction
and dissatisfaction in it. According to Adams (1963, 1965), satisfaction is determined
by the perceived input-outcome balance. He states that, employees aim to reach a
balance between their inputs and their outcomes. Inputs are factors such as
educational level, experience, ability, skill, effort, responsibility, age and effort, while
outcomes are the things like performance, salary, good working conditions, work
insurance, promotion, recognition, status, and opportunity (Holtum, 2007).
The degree of equity is a factor that is defined by the relationship between inputs and
outcomes. Employees make a comparison between their own contribution and rewards.
During this stage, if employees feel themselves as not being fairly treated, this will
result in dissatisfaction. If the rates of reward are low than others, means inequality
increases, employees try to increase their rewards. If this is not possible, they decrease
19

their contribution and performance. In contrast, if this rate is higher than anothers rate,
feeling of guilt emerges. In other words, not only under-reward but also over reward
can lead to dissatisfaction and feeling of guilt (Al-Zawahreh & Al-Madi).
Some studies related with equality state that, for instance, female may be more tolerant
or underpayment inequality than males, and they may experience less perceived
inequality.
As a conclusion, Adamss Theory made a significant contribution to motivation theory
by pointing out social comparisons. A part from expectancy theories, which focus on
the relationship between performance and reward, Adamss theory proposed that
motivation process is more complicated and employees evaluate their rewards by social
comparisons.
2.2.2.3 Discrepancy Theory
According to Discrepancy Theory, differences between received outcome levels and
desired outcome levels determine the satisfaction. When received outcome level is
below the desired outcome level, dissatisfaction occurs Katzell (1961) and Locke
(1968) have presented two most developed discrepancy theories. Locke proposed that
perceived discrepancy is important, and satisfaction is determined by the difference
between what people wants, what they receive/perceive and what they expect to receive
(Atasoy, 2004).
2.2.2.4 Job Characteristic Theory
Hackman and Oldman (1976) to explain aspects of job satisfaction develop Job
Characteristic Model. It states that job characteristics are the best predictors of job
satisfaction since job satisfaction is affected by interaction of task characteristics,
characteristics of workers and organizational characteristics (Green, 2000). According
to Job Characteristic Model, job satisfaction is based on five job characteristics, which
are under three psychological states; experienced meaningfulness of the work,
experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, knowledge of the actual results of
the work activities. Experienced meaningfulness has three job characteristics; they are
skill variety, task identity and task significance. Job characteristic of experienced

20

responsibility is autonomy and job characteristic of knowledge of the actual results is

feedback.
Hackman and Lawler (1971) studies provide an important background for the
Hackman-Oldham model (1975), their model stated the most widely accepted job
characteristic approach with the six job attributes: variety, autonomy, task identity,
feedback, dealing with others and friendship opportunities (Atasoy, 2004).
2.2.2.5 Goal-Setting Theory
Goal Setting Theory is developed by Locke and Latham, and according to the theory,
goal setting is one of the most significant components of job satisfaction. Goal-setting
theory emphasizes the importance of specific goals in obtaining motivation and
satisfaction. In goal setting process, people want to achieve goals in order to get
satisfied on emotions and desires (Luthans, 1995).
One of the findings of goal setting theory, specific and difficult goals necessitates the
higher performance. Another is that goal setting would be most effective if effective
feedback process exists. Therefore, manager should assess the reasons why objectives
are reached or not, rather than giving punishment (Luthans, 1995).
2.2.3. Other Relevant Theories
According to Balance Theory, people create many relationships with other people, and
these relationships have various impacts on peoples attitudes and behaviors according
to Rogers &Kincaid (1980). Furthermore, according to Heider (1958), balancing in
relationships can be important because it affects positively an individuals cognitive or
emotional (Chatzoglou, et al., 2011).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory is proposed by Deci (1975), who states individuals aim
at deciding about their own behavior so that regarding themselves as the causal of that
behavior.

21

2.3. Factors that affect Job Satisfaction

Up until now, several approaches developed for determination of the employee job
satisfaction and many studies were conducted about factors that affect employee job
satisfaction in the literature. Therefore, significant background information is obtained
about the related and effecting factors of job satisfaction.
Some researchers examined the determinants of job satisfaction. Locke (1976) defined
the fundamental dimensions of job satisfaction as the job itself, payment, promotion,
working conditions, benefits of the work, fellow workers, personal values, employee
relationship. In 1962, Vroom pointed out that the job satisfaction has seven aspects, i.e.
the compensation, the supervisor, the colleagues, the working environment, the job
content, the promotion, and the organization itself. As a recent study, irin (2009) states
the factors affecting job satisfaction as follows; feeling of success, relations with the
management and employees, job safety, responsibility, recognition, high salary,
promotion opportunity, clarity of roles, participation in decisions, freedom, good
coordinated work, lack of continuity, relocation, performance, life satisfaction, and
perceived work stress (nar & Karcolu, 2012). All these kind of studies support the
idea that employee satisfaction has many aspects and influenced by various factors
(Zaim, et al., 2012).
According to some other studies in the literature, factors that affect job satisfaction can
be sorted as follows: salary, benefits, the nature of work, pressure, career development,
education and training, job nature, management style, safety, job security, appreciation,
training, workload, pay, promotional opportunities, organizational support of career,
rewards, meeting, the overall working environment, department environment, physical
conditions, equity, task variety, intergroup conflict, perceived organizational support,
organizational commitment, delegation of power, communication, organizational
integration, role ambiguity, communication with management, style of management,
communication between colleagues and other groups, teamwork and cooperation,
personal development, content of work, variety of task, responsibility, working hours,
timings, recognition of superiors, job characteristics, job clarity, role conflict,
advancement opportunities, company culture, safety at work, work content, good
relationships with coworkers, technology, atmosphere at work, workload, feelings of
22

accomplishment, performance, advancement opportunities, work exhaustion, turnover,

absenteeism, performance evaluation systems, compensation, companys image and
corporate culture. (Mihajlovic, et al., 2008, & Spniewska, 2013, & Van Saane et al.,
2003)
Some of determinant factors are explained in detail in the following parts. The factors
are divided into two main groups as the determinant factors of job satisfaction:
environmental factors and personal factors according to the study of Spector (1997).
Environmental factors consist of working conditions, personal development
opportunities, rewards, supervision, co-workers and communication. Personal factors
include demographic variables, which are gender, educational level, and seniority.
2.3.1. Environmental Factors
2.3.1.1

Working Conditions

Working conditions consists of the physical and social conditions at the work. People
want to work in a comfortable, safe environment, a clean, modern and enough-equipped
environment (Sun, 2002) and work in good conditions such as appropriate temperature,
lighting and noise (Green, 2000). For example, people can be disturbed when they are
distracted by unexpected noise such as telephones, conversations or crowding (Bridger
& Brusher, 2011) and absence of temperature or lighting causes strain (MacMillan,
2012).
2.3.1.2

Self-Improvement

Workers want to improve their skills, abilities, knowledge, and to learn new things
especially, which provide personal growth. In parallel with, if they are satisfied on selfimprovement opportunities, their overall job satisfaction level increases. Therefore, job
training plays a key role for personal development opportunities and helps employees to
be more specific with their job, as a result, employee job satisfaction increases. In
addition, employee development programs improve workers satisfaction level by
giving them more sense of confidence, providing to control over their career and
increasing positive feelings towards their job (Jin & Lee, 2012).

23

2.3.1.3

Reward

According to Kalleberg (1977), reward is related with the employees desire, and it
motivates employees. It shows what an employee wants after performing a certain task.
According to Gerald & Dorothee (2004), rewards are very strongly correlated with job
satisfaction (Javed et al., 2012). Moreover, according to the related literature, rewards
are divided into two categories as; extrinsic rewards and intrinsic rewards. Extrinsic
rewards consist of money, promotion and benefits. Intrinsic rewards include having a
sense of achievement, being part of a team success, being appreciated by superiors
because of a good performance and feeling recognized. Job satisfaction increases with
all these feelings and returns (Baar, 2011).
2.3.1.4

Supervision

Employee job satisfaction have positively affected by supervisors support and

recognition of employees (Yang, et al., 2011). Since the supervisors are representative
for the institution, if they are supportive and helpful, employees perceive the
organization as the same (Emhan, et al., 2014). Communication between supervisors
and subordinates determines employees attitudes towards their jobs. In addition,
management style of supervisors is important and it can be different. For example, in
one type, supervisors implement such things like checking to see employees
performance and communicating with subordinates. In another type, they allow their
subordinates to participate in decisions related with their jobs (Yeltan, 2007, &
Beiktas, 2009). Moreover, lack of communication between employees and supervisors
negatively affect employees job satisfaction.
2.3.1.5

Co-worker

Employees that have a better relationship with their coworkers are more likely to be
satisfied with their job (Yang, et al., 2011). According to Locke, employees prefer to
work with people being friendly, supportive, and cooperative (Baar, 2011). Since
people spend majority of their times with colleagues, if co-workers make them happy,
this has positive impact on their job satisfaction (Beiktas, 2009).

24

2.3.1.6

Communication

Communication within workplace is essential for organizations in terms of job

satisfaction. According to Ozturk, Hancer et al. (2014), there are two different
dimensions of internal communication in organizations. One of them is managerial
communication such as giving oral presentation and giving feedback, the other one is
informal interaction such as communication with each other beyond formal channels.
Effective interaction and communication provide to improve job satisfaction; on the
contrary, lack of communication causes dissatisfaction.
2.3.2.

Personal Factors

2.3.2.1

Gender

In the literature, there are many studies investigating relationships between gender and
job satisfaction. There are different results about this issue. Some of them propose that
women are more satisfied than men are; some of them suggest the vice-versa. Because
of the fact that men and women have different social roles, their expectancies from job
may also be differ. For example, women give more importance to working conditions
and social relationship, whereas men are more satisfied with some factors such as pay
and promotion opportunities. This may be resulted from the difference between
expectancy levels of each gender, in which expectancy of women are relatively less
than men are, so, women can be satisfied with more (Beiktas, 2009, & Spector, 1997).
2.3.2.2

Educational Level

In the literature, most researches indicate that as the level of education increases, job
satisfaction may decrease. Highly educated workers may be dissatisfied with their work
if it requires performing the repetitive tasks (Green, 2000). Requirements of jobs should
be fitted with educational level of employee, otherwise, if educational level of a worker
is so high for requirements of the job, this causes dissatisfaction (Sun, 2002). Another
reason of dissatisfaction among highly educated people is to have higher levels
expectation for their job.

25

2.3.2.3

Seniority

Seniority is defined as how long employees have been working in their jobs within the
same organization. There are different views about the relationship between seniority to
job satisfaction. Some of studies states that as with age, seniority is also expected to
contribute to increase of job satisfaction due to the familiarity with work content and
work environment. On the other hand, some of them suggest that job satisfaction and
seniority are negatively correlated as shown in De Santis and Dursts study (Green,
2000).

2.4. Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Unlike many technical issues, determination, measurement, and improvement of job
satisfaction is not so easy, because there are psychological effects and concerns about
them. In order to prevent this issue, many researches are conducted and questionnaire
methods are developed to deal with factors related to job satisfaction and to measure job
satisfaction level. Literature review about job satisfaction and measurement techniques
is presented in the following part.
In the literature, there is a consensus among researchers about the definition of job
satisfaction, however; measurement of it is still on debate. Measurement of job
satisfaction is a complex issue since job satisfaction is explained by not only job
characteristics, but also personal characteristics, needs, values, expectancies. Because of
that reason, for example, two employees working in the same job can experience
different satisfaction level (Harputlu, 2014).
Smith, Kendall and Hulins on Job Description Index (1969), which is one of the most
widely used approaches to identify factors affecting job satisfaction, indicates that job
satisfaction can be measured with five aspects namely; pay, coworkers, promotions,
supervision and the nature of the work. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was also
designed to measure job satisfaction of employees. It contains three scales. These scales
are intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction (Zaim, et al.,
2012).

26

In the literature, there are two main approaches for the measurement of job satisfaction:
global approach and facet approach. Global satisfaction scales can be categorized
into multi-item and single item instruments. The idea that job satisfaction is a single
concept and employees produce overall attitude towards work is prominent in studies
in 1970s. Global job satisfaction measuring scales were developed in these years.
However, some researchers criticized the use of single item measures because it has
assumption about job satisfaction as being one-dimensional (Green, 2000). Among the
global job satisfaction scales having multiple items, two most prominent are The Job in
General Scale (JIG) and Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Subscale.
The JIG contains 18 items and Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
Subscale contains three items (Spector, 1997).
On the other hand, facet approach is used to obtain which aspects of the job cause
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Thanks to this approach, a more complete assessment
about job satisfaction is reached than the goal approach (Spector, 1997). Facet specific
scales also consist of a single item or multiple items per facet. Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) that was designed by Weiss et al. covers 20 facets. Long form of
MSQ with 100 items contains five items per facet. In this case, usage of single-item
measures is easier, less expensive and takes less time to complete. However, Spector
(1997) presents two reasons to use multiple items per facet. The first one is, multiple
item scale, is more reliable than single items. This is because, for instance, respondents
can make mistakes while they are completing questionnaire and this may reduce the
reliability of the questionnaire. When the number of items in a subscale is increased, the
effect of the inconsistent responses decreases. Another advantage of the facet specific
questionnaire is to provide assessment that is a more complete.
In addition, other examples of facet specific scales with multiple items are Job
Descriptive Index (JDI) and Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). JDI developed by Smith,
Kendall and Hulin contains 5 facets and 72 items. Related with the index, Van Saane
(2003) suggests that it did not meet quality criteria. In his study, twenty-nine
instruments are described. It has very good psychometric properties compared with
others and it is one of the most reliable and valid instruments for job satisfaction
measures. Moreover, JDS was designed by Hackman and Oldman in order to
investigate the effects of job characteristics on people. It consists of subscales to
27

measure the nature of work, motivation, personality, psychological states and reaction
to the job like job satisfaction. Furthermore, it also covers several areas of job
satisfaction: growth, pay, security, social and supervision as well as global satisfaction
(Spector, 1997).

2.5. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a systematic method to compare a list of
items. It is a structured decision making tool for organizing and analyzing complex
decisions with the set of alternatives and criteria. It was developed by Thomas L.
Saaty in the 1970s, and became a widely used method for solving multiple criteria in
decision-making problems.
According to the developments about decision-making process in the literature, it is
revealed that traditional logical thinking to evaluate feelings and judgments is not
enough, because it is to practice for a long time and lead not to discern their
interconnections. In addition, complex problems usually have many related factors. In
traditional measurement, the elements are measured one by one, not by comparing them
with each other. It is needed to determine which objective outweighs another. Saaty
recognizes shortcomings of traditional approach and AHP method is developed as a
systematic approach. Thanks to this approach, people make judgments about decisionmaking problem and rank them according to importance, preference, and likelihood and
so, they choose the best among alternatives in the presence of environmental, social,
and other influences (Saaty, 1994).
In AHP methodology, if the subject group of the study consists of individuals that work
closely together by interacting and influencing, the deterministic approach would be
appropriate. If a large number of geographically scattered individuals provide their
judgments, a statistical procedure would be appropriable to deal with the variation
among several people for the weights of the alternatives (Basak & Saaty, 1993).
The most of the tasks in decision-making are related to deal with complex problems and
are required to choose important factors that affect the problems and to make the best
decision among multiple alternatives. Analytic hierarchy process is one of the most
28

useful techniques for a multi-criteria decision making approach. It is a systematic

method for arranging factors in a hierarchical structure and comparing them as a list of
objectives or alternatives.
Group decision-making process, for which AHP Methodology is used, is a critical
issue. Group decision-making is a situation faced when individuals collectively make a
choice from the alternatives. The multiple criteria decision-making process in a group
accounts for the criteria of a group of people and the relevance of the criteria in view of
a given problem with a consensus.
Judgments are the basis of the decision-making process, according to the AHP method
and guided by the experience and knowledge of the decision making group, which is
useful to evaluate the different components of the problem (Barcenas & Lopez-Huertas,
2012). It can be said that an important and distinctive property about AHP is to convert
the comparisons, which are the empirical data (judgments), into numeric values and
mathematical models (Badea, 2014).
In the framework of AHP, first the decision problem is decomposed into a hierarchy. In
the hierarchy, there are many layers such as goal, criteria, sub-criteria, and decision
alternatives. In other words, this hierarchy includes more easily comprehended subproblems and each of which can be analyzed independently. Decomposition provides to
break down the problem into manageable elements. This is a technique in which
structuring a decision is to come down from the goal by decomposing it into the most
general and most easily controlled factors. In a general hierarchical model, there are
multiple levels of criteria located under the goal, and alternatives located in the bottom
level of the hierarchy. By breaking the problem into levels, the decision-maker could
focus on smaller sets of decisions.
Conceptually, there are two approaches for generating AHP hierarchy; one of them is
top down approach, in which criteria are identified firstly and then the alternatives are
determined, and the second one bottom up approach, in which alternatives are
identified and then the criteria are determined. Determination of which approach is
better depends on the information that the researcher has. If more is known about the
criteria than about the alternatives, a top down approach is best because this knowledge
29

will help to identify alternatives. If more is known about the alternatives than the
criteria, then a bottom up approach will be useful.
After setting up of the hierarchy, pairwise comparisons of factors influencing the
decision are made. In the pairwise comparison stage, a priority scale of absolute
judgments is used, which enables to measure the relative importance of elements and
represents how much more; one element dominates another with respect to a given
attribute (Saaty, 2008).
In the measurement stage, once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers evaluate its
various elements with respect to the hierarchy scale. Evaluation is carried out with
establishing and assessing weights to factors. A relative scale of the measurement of the
priority or weights of the elements is obtained with the comparison. All of these
weights give the importance of the alternatives (Saaty, 1985).
AHP has a fundamental scale of 1 to 9 and comparisons are made using this absolute
judgments scale. In the AHP technique, the numerical results of judgments are placed
into a comparison matrix. For analysis, a matrix where the number in the ith row and jth
column gives the relative importance of Oi as compared with Oj, is formed for a
pairwise comparison and a 19 scale is used with:
aij = 1 if the two objectives are equal in importance
aij = 3 if Oi is weakly more important than Oj
aij = 5 if Oi is strongly more important than Oj
aij = 7 if Oi is very strongly more important than Oj
aij = 9 if Oi is absolutely more important than Oj
aij = 1/3 if Oj is weakly more important than Oi
aij = 1/5 if Oj is strongly more important than Oi
aij = 1/7 if Oj is very strongly more important than Oi
aij = 1/9 if Oj is absolutely more important than Oi
As shown in Figure 2.1, pairwise comparisons are presented in the square matrices,
which consist of the values, which are between 1/9, and 9. The diagonal elements of the
matrix are equal to 1 and the other ones verify two conditions. The i-jth element is
equal to the comparison between element i and element j regarding the considered
30

criterion n. For i different from j, the i- jth element is equal to the inverse of the j-ith
element (Jin-lou & Yi-fei & Zhao, 2011). To solve the reciprocal matrix, Saaty uses the
eigenvector, which is a priority vector as an estimate of underlying preferences
corresponding to the elements compared. Individual judgments in corresponding matrix
are synthesized by using eigenvalue method to find consensus priority weights of the
alternatives in a certain level of the hierarchy. When utilizing eigenvalue method,
generally, geometric means of judgments are calculated to obtain eigenvectors. Besides
geometric mean, taking averages of judgments is another method in order to use in the
eigenvalue computations. Geometric mean is often used when comparing different
items to find a single "figure for these items. In AHP method, generally each item has
different characteristics and ranges, so geometric mean approach is more appropriate
than taking averages. Geometric mean and eigenvector calculations are explained as
follows: after generating reciprocal matrix from paired comparisons, each column of the
reciprocal matrix are summed up, each element of the matrix is divided with the sum of
its column, and relative weights are normalized. Normalized principal eigenvector can
be obtained by calculating geometric means across the rows, and the normalized
principal eigenvector is also called priority vector, so, the priority vector shows relative
weights among the things compared. Finally, after making all the pairwise comparisons,
controlling the consistency of the subjective evaluations is required. The consistency
index is derived from the Eigen vector. The consistency is determined by using the
eigenvalue, max, to calculate the consistency index, CI as follows: CI= ( max n)/(n1) where n is the number of criteria. So, judgment consistency could be checked by
taking the consistency index (CI) with the appropriate value. The CI is acceptable, if it
is does not exceed 0.10.
For the AHP analysis and results, software program Expert Choice is used. Expert
Choice has an algorithm to combine the judgments in the matrices and automatically
computes the geometric mean for each cell. Therefore, priority weights of the
alternatives in a problem are obtained.

31

Figure 2.1 AHP Pairwise Positive Reciprocal Comparison Matrices

As conclusion, making decision is one of the most important tasks in the professional
business life; therefore, AHP is still one of the best analytical approaches for complex
decisions making problems. Through decision-making process with help of AHP
method, policy makers in organizations use multiple tradeoffs to analyze their complex
problems. In addition, AHP technique is used for many different fields such as benefitcost analysis, planning and development, forecasting, and health and related
fields (Vaidya & Kumar, 2006).
2.6. Group Size in Decision Making Problems
In decision-making problems, the most important issue is group size or in other words
sample size. A larger sample can yield more accurate results but excessive responses
can be time consuming. Therefore; finding a number which is small and enough for
sample size is very important. In order to calculate sample size, it is necessary to know
few terms about calculation;
Confidence Level : It is a type of interval and used for the calculation of the sample
size with a percentage level of confidence (Kaewmanorom, 2013). The most common
confidence intervals are 90% confident, 95% confident, and 99% confident. Confidence
level corresponds to a Z-score (Smith, 2013) and the most common confidence levels:
90% Z Score = 1.645
95% Z Score = 1.96
99% Z Score = 2.326
Margin of Error : Percentage of error outside the confidence level,
32

Standard of Deviation : It is the estimation of variance in the sample and the safe
standard deviation to use in sample size calculations is 0.5.
Necessary Sample Size = (Z-score) * StdDev * (1-StdDev) / (margin of error)

33

34

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

This study aims to determine which factors are important for the job satisfaction of
employees working in the public institution, and to assess the satisfaction level of
employees with respect to these factors.
For this study, the employees, who are assistant experts and experts, having BS or MS
degrees from prominent universities and working in a public institution in Ankara, are
selected as the subject group. It is assumed that these employees all belong to similar
socio-economic groups. Therefore, they are assumed to answer the questions in the
surveys from similar perspectives.
In the first stage of the study, the factors, which affect satisfaction of these employees,
are identified among various factors by investigating the previous studies in the
literature and making comprehensive interviews with the employees. After the
determination of the factors, which have an impact on the job satisfaction level,
Analytic Hierarchy Process technique is used. They are classified and the related
questionnaire forms are prepared. In the public institution, there are many different
departments under different general directorates. These questionnaire forms related with
the AHP survey are conducted on the employees working in these departments. After
that, Expert Choice 11 Software is used to obtain the outcomes.
In the third stage, after analyzing the factors that are asked in the AHP questionnaire
and identifying which ones are more important, Job Satisfaction Questionnaire forms
were prepared and given to the personnel, who are the same employees answering AHP
survey, in order to identify the satisfaction levels of employees with these important
35

factors. SPSS 21.0 software is used to evaluate and to analyze the results of the Job
Satisfaction Survey.
For the comparison of the results of AHP Survey and Job Satisfaction Survey, the
percent of dissatisfaction ration is utilized. In addition, effects of demographic
properties of participants on both overall satisfaction level and factor satisfaction levels
are investigated in terms of the determinant factors.
Another important issue for the analyzes is the necessary sample size of the subject
employee group, explained in the literature part of the study. It is calculated by the
formula, given below:
Necessary Sample Size = (Z-score) * StdDev * (1-StdDev) / (margin of error)

Confidence interval is taken as 90%, and corresponding z-score is Z Score = 1.645.

Margin of Error, which is the percentage of error, outside the confidence level, is taken
as 0.01. And also, standard of deviation is taken as 0,5.
Necessary Sample Size = (1.645) * 0.5 * (1-0.5) / (0.1)
68

In this research, the sample size has 70 employees who are assistant experts and experts
and therefore it is proper to be representative for the whole expert and assistant expert
employees in the institution.

3.1. Identification of Factors

In the literature, many researches are conducted about job satisfaction and
corresponding factors that affect job satisfaction of employee. The previous studies
demonstrate that there are many factors strongly related with job satisfaction, such as
facilities of the organization, the working environment, self-improvement possibilities,
internal group dynamics, and communication between the department members.
Throughout the determination stage of the factors for this study, an extensive literature

36

research is done and opinions of the employees in the public institution are taken into
consideration.
After the investigation of the factors, which are presented in the literature, an interview
is made with 10 selected employees for obtaining factors that are specific to the
institution. The main reasons of this interview are that; asking employees about their
opinions of the job satisfaction factors, to determining suitable ones for this
organization. By this way, all of the factors that are proper and specific to the institution
about the job satisfaction are included in this research.
During the interview, open-ended questions are asked to the employees such as What
are the things in this institution that increase your satisfaction level? and What are the
things in this institution that decrease your satisfaction level? Then, additional factors,
which are considered to affect the job satisfaction of the employees in this institution,
are identified. At the end, the factors investigated and found in the literature are
consolidated with the factors obtained from the interviews. The final list consisting of
25 factors was generated and presented in the Table 3.1.
In this study, the employees are not asked explicitly for the reasons of their preference
for this particular governmental organization. It is assumed that their reasons for the
choice of this institution are related to some widely accepted factors specific to this
institution. Some of them are included in the study to be investigated, and some other
factors, such as pay and job security are disregarded. According to general working
conditions in Turkey in recent years and by taking into account the preferences for
choosing this institution, salaries are considered quite satisfactory for government
institutions compared to private sector especially for new graduates. This is one of the
main reasons for new graduates for choosing this institution as a working place. One of
the reasons that this factor is disregarded is that salaries are determined by the central
government policies and cannot be changed by managerial initiatives of the institution.
Another reason is that the employees have the knowledge of income levels once they
start working, and they also know that wages are standard based on seniority, and
depend on central government policies. Both for these reasons, this factor cannot be
improved by the institution even if it appears to be non-satisfactory as a result of this
study. In addition to payment, job security is also disregarded because employees
37

already know that being a civil servant in Turkey provides job security, and it is
obvious that this is one of the most important determinants for choosing this particular
institution.
Table 3.1 Factors Determined Through the Literature Research and the Interviews
Master Degree Opportunity
Overseas Appointment
Language Training Program
Working in a Preferred Department
Participating in International and National Meetings
Publishing an Academic Study in International and National Journals
Services such as Transportation and Food Service
Workload That Could Be Completed in Working Hours
Regular Workload (Not Varying Periodically)
Clarity of Job Description
Task routines (Unvarying Actions)
Work-Related Responsibilities given to Employees
Importance of Tasks for Institution
Time Constraint to Complete Work
Physical Conditions
Training Opportunities in the Country and Abroad
Working in the Projects that Develop the Capabilities of Employees
Appreciations & Rewards
Communication with Colleagues in the Department
Communication with Managers
Cooperation between the Department Members
Style of Supervision
Competitiveness between the Department Members
Equal Workload among Employees in the Department
Equal Chance among Employees to Access to Opportunities in the Department
3.2. Description of Factors
Master degree opportunity: Opportunity of obtaining a master degree at top schools of
the world regarded as a special opportunity of this institution. (Every year, approx. 20
students, who get top score from the criteria put by institution, are selected to study
master degree in worlds famous schools).
Overseas appointment: Opportunity of being a diplomat in foreign countries all over the
world can be seen as a special opportunity of the institution. (A diplomat appointed in
38

another country has higher salaries and has some advantages in the country that he/she
is appointed)
Language training programs: The institution supports second and third language
education of employees, so employees can get some discount advantages from selected
language schools. By this opportunity, they improve themselves and prepare themselves
for their overseas appointment.
Working in the preferred department: It is an opportunity that employees choose a
department that they would prefer to work. With this opportunity, they have a chance to
work in different department with different colleagues and managers, for different
fields. This is an important factor for the employees to develop their working abilities
and knowledge.
Participation into international and national meetings: This opportunity prepares the
employees to work in international and national area. They learn many things from the
other countries experiences and they expand their knowledge about the specific subject
related with their working field.
Publishing an academic study in international and national journals: This is an
opportunity to publish their own academic study related with their working field in an
international and/or national area for employees.
Services such as transportation and food service: It is an opportunity that is related to
use services such as transportation and food. Taking good services is very important
aspect of the job. It is also important for the institution to have more effective and
efficient workers.
Workload that could be completed in working office hours: Working hours is varying
from department to department in the institution according to departments workload,
so it can cause boredom if it cannot be completed in regular working hours.
Regular workload (not varying periodically): Workload can be different according to
departments conditions and it can vary from time to time in a year according to
projects, meetings and some special conditions. Therefore; it is expected to affect job
satisfaction (Trivellas, et al., 2013).
Clarity of job description: This factor explains that employee has a clear job definition
and there exists certain boundaries so that any different jobs should not be given to
employee without his or her responsibilities (Soonhee, 2009).

39

Task routines (Unvarying Actions): An employee working in the same and unvarying
jobs tends to be bored about this routine, so this can make employee dissatisfied (Yang,
et al., 2011).
Work-related responsibilities given to employee: Responsibilities given to employee
have generally positive effect on job satisfaction. Employees want to take
responsibilities related with their working area, because they think that responsibility is
driving factor of development and promotion (Kim, 2009)
Importance of Tasks for Institution: This is the opinion and perception about the
importance degree of the works. The more an employee attaches importance to his/her
job, the more he/she is satisfied with the job (Lunenburg, 2011b).
Time constraint to complete work: Some projects or jobs have limited time to complete,
so that this can cause stress and dissatisfaction. This institution contains heavy
workloads because of its dynamic and inter-dependent structure, hence this results in
time constraint to complete the works.
Physical conditions: Physical facilities and their conditions in the institution affect job
satisfaction of employees (Peters, 2010). As mentioned before, employees want to work
in a comfortable, safe, clean, and enough-equipped environment (Sun, 2002).
Appropriate working conditions make employees more productive and satisfied.
Training opportunities in the country and abroad: There are, for instance, many special
certificate programs related with the working fields of the institution such as
international new regulation programs or statistic programs all over the world.
Employees participate these kinds of programs for self-improvement and future
knowledge of the institution (Schmidt, 2004).
Appreciations & rewards: Rewards and appreciations by managers are essential factors
for job satisfaction. According to the related literature, rewards, which can be financial
and non-financial, are very strongly correlated with job satisfaction (Kumar & Singh,
2011).
Projects that develop the capabilities of the employee: Workers want to improve their
skills, abilities, knowledge, and want to learn new things, so that, they desire to work in
the projects that develops the capabilities of themselves. These kinds of improvement
opportunities enhance job satisfaction level of them.
Communication with Colleagues in the Department: Good communication and
relationships with colleagues in the department has more likely to affect job satisfaction
positively (Yang, et al., 2011). This is very critical issue to work in peace environment.
40

Cooperation between department members: Cooperation, solidarity and assistance

between colleagues in a department affects job satisfaction positively. When employees
accompany their colleagues in doing works, the things are done well.
Communication with Managers: Good communication with managers in the department
is an important factor affecting job satisfaction of employees, since an employee carry
the business with his/her managers (Steingrimsdottir, 2011)
Style of supervision: Managers may be more autocratic or democratic; so that, some of
them could behave politely compared with others, some of them behave impolitely.
This affects job satisfaction of employees directly. (Voon et al., 2011).
Competitiveness between department members: Competitiveness between colleagues is
a kind of communication in the department, but it should be sobersidedly (Selladurai,
1991).

Equal workload among employees in the department: Balanced work share of

colleagues is a crucial factor for satisfaction of employees. If there is an inequality of
distribution of workload, this will suffer employees in the same department (Ari &
Sipal, 2009)
Equal chance among employees to access to opportunities in the department:
Opportunities such as overseas programs should be distributed to the employees
equally. Otherwise, employees feel themselves as not being fairly treated, and this will
result in dissatisfaction.

3.3. AHP Methodology

In this part of the study, the factors that are gathered from literature researches and
interviews are examined. Since many factors are considered and analyzed in this study,
it could be regarded as multi-criteria decision-making problem. With this point of view,
before deciding on the suitable method for analysis, previous studies in the literature are
investigated. In the light of the literature research, AHP technique is chosen as being the
most appropriate and useful approach since it is widely used method for solving
multiple criteria decision-making problems and our problem is kind of multi- criteria
decision making problem with its dimensions. In addition, the main reason for choosing
AHP method is that we need to eliminate some less important factors and to determine

41

more important factors among all predetermined factors, which are worth to be
analyzed in the second part of the study.
Since it is not an easy problem and it consists of lots of different factors, it is not
enough to ask employees which factor is more important to you. It is necessary to use
more detailed and convenient technique, which enables to ask, Which factor is more
important to you when compared with the other one, so that, the comparison and
judgments among various alternative factors could be made better. AHP is a systematic
method for arranging factors in a hierarchical structure; it provides comparisons
between the factors that affect job satisfaction and it determines which factor outweighs
the other. Relative measurements and judgments could be made with a priority scale,
which is derived from pairwise comparison measurements, and evaluation of these
measurements. By this way, weights to factors could be assessed. In other words, this
technique forces the respondent to make a preference between two given alternatives at
each stage and enables the decision maker to evaluate various factors systematically by
comparing them with each other, finally, how much more one factor dominates the
other is reached.
In addition, AHP technique has a distinctive property compared to other comparing
techniques, which is a capability of transforming empirical data into mathematical
models. It is important to obtain tangible results in order to make correct analysis. For
all of these reasons, AHP is chosen as being the most appropriable method for our
study.
3.3.1. Classification of the Factors
After deciding on the method for organizing and analyzing factors, a hierarchical
structure is generated to evaluate the problem systematically according to AHP method.
By constructing the hierarchy, the problem is decomposed into more easily
comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analyzed independently. In our
AHP structure, the hierarchy is formed and factors are classified in order to make
pairwise comparison.
In the hierarchy of our problem, predetermined factors are clustered into four main
categories (main factors) which are Opportunities, Working Conditions, Self42

Improvement, and Internal Group Dynamics in the Department, and they can be seen in
the hierarchy tree below. Opportunities factor refers to favorable circumstances
provided to employees by the institution, Working Conditions factor refers to
facilities related with work environment surroundings, Internal Group Dynamics
factor refers to communication among employees and internal conditions in the
department and Self-Improvement refers to personal development.
All of these categories also have several sub-factors that are determined in previous
stage of the study. In order to obtain the classified main factors and sub-factors;
credible senior experts in the institution are consulted. Then, each of sub-factors is
placed in the most relevant main category. This helps to simplify the problem and lead
us to see the importance of each heading and sub-headings easily, before analyzing
phase.
In the literature, there are two approaches for generating AHP hierarchy; one of them is
top down approach, in which first criteria are identified and then the alternatives are
determined, and the second one bottom up approach, in which alternatives are
identified and then the criteria are determined. If more is known about the alternatives
than about the criteria, then a bottom up approach is useful. In our study, it is known
more about the factors in the lower level of hierarchy, so, bottom up approach is used
for classification of sub-factors and determination of main factors.
In the literature, AHP methodology is generally used for comparison of tangible
concepts and determination of relationships between them. On the other hand, job
satisfaction and determinant factors of it are intangible concepts. Thus, clustering of
factors are more subjective issue and depend on the conditions of the study such as the
organization where the study is conducted and the subject group of the study.
Therefore, in this study, the sub-factors are tried to be placed in the most relevant main
category by the help of the previous studies in the literature and credible senior experts
in the institution. The corresponding classification is shown in the Table 3.2.
In addition, in this study, independence of factors is also taken into consideration. Main
factors and sub factors in the AHP hierarchy are assumed independent. Independence of
factors is important since there should not be any correlation between factors while
43

comparing with each other. Issues about independence of main factors are discussed in
Limitations part of this study.
Table 3.2 Classification of Factors
Working Environment: Workload that could be completed in working hours,
regular workload (not varying periodically), clarity of job description, task
routines, work-related responsibilities given to the employee, importance of task,
time constrain to complete work, physical conditions
Self-Improvement: Training opportunities in the country or abroad (certificate
programs etc.), appreciations & rewards about successes related with job, working
in the projects that develop the capabilities of the employee.
Internal Group Dynamics and Communication in the Department:
Communication with colleagues in the department, communication with
managers, cooperation between department members, style of supervision,
competitiveness between department members, equal workload among employees
in the department, equal chance among employees to access to opportunities in the
department
Opportunities: Master degree opportunity, overseas appointment, going to the
language courses with the discount of the institution, working in preferred
department, participating into international and national meetings, publishing an
academic study in international and national journals, services such as
transportation and food service

44

Figure 3.1 Hierarchy Tree of AHP

45

3.3.2. Preparation and Execution of AHP Survey

After constructing the hierarchy, the questionnaire form is prepared. Pairwise
comparisons between main factors and pairwise comparisons between sub-factors in
each main factor are prepared in an answerable format. In the questionnaire, each
comparison is correspond to one question, and the related question is Which of the
following given two factors is more important for your job satisfaction. AHP rating
has 9 points and bilateral 1-9 scale. Questionnaire form is given in the Appendix A.
This rating mechanism, which is used in the questionnaire, is as follows:

1 If two factor have the same importance level

3 If a factor is more important a little bit than the other

5 If a factor is more important than the other

7 If a factor is a lot more important than the other

9 If a factor is more important beyond comparison

This questionnaire was conducted on employees in many departments in the institution.

The necessary permissions are obtained from top management about conducting
questionnaires. Questionnaires are not given to managers since there are supervision
related questions that would address to judge themselves.
In order to provide employees comfortable answering settings and to avoid waste of
paper, instead of handing out paper-based forms, it is thought that web-based
questionnaire forms should be designed. Information Technologies department of the
institution is collaborated in order to implement this plan through a few of writing
procedures to get permission of the usage of the software programs. After these
procedures, a survey application program of the questionnaire is generated; and
structure of the form and questions in the questionnaire forms are transferred to the
prepared program.
After that, in execution stage, one page of brief explanation related to the study and the
link containing web-based questionnaire forms are sent to the employees by e-mail,
given in Appendix A. Then, answers are received. Each employee who prefers to
participate into this study answers the questions, which have AHP rating scale, marks
46

the number found to be convenient for him/her. Until the expiration date of the survey,
70 employees have been reached to participate into the survey.
3.3.3. Results of AHP Survey
After the execution phase of the AHP survey, analysis is made in order to identify
which factors outweigh the others. All of the answers for each questions are exported to
the excel format.
In the evaluation and analysis part, Expert Choice 11 software program is used. First,
matrices for main factors are prepared by using the data from all answers obtained from
AHP Survey. Each matrix contains cells, which correspond to aggregated values for
pairwise comparison questions. The averages of answers from all employees for each
comparison are calculated and entered to these cells of matrix. After that, the matrices
consisting of pairwise comparisons (judgments) were transferred to Expert Choice
software program because the program allows entering all the values of judgments to
the matrices in it. Then, the software automatically computes the geometric mean for
each cell. Individual judgments in corresponding matrix are synthesized by using
eigenvalue method to find consensus priority weights of the alternatives in a certain
level of the hierarchy. When utilizing eigenvalue method, generally, geometric means
of judgments are calculated to obtain eigenvectors. The reason is to use geometric
means is that, in mathematics, the geometric mean is the central tendency and it is often
used when comparing different items for finding a single "figure for these items. In
AHP method, each item generally has different characteristics and ranges, so geometric
mean approach is more appropriate than taking averages.
After the data entering procedure, the program automatically calculated the importance
level (priority weight) of each factor in the hierarchy. These calculated values are
shown in the figures below (figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 & 3.5). Moreover, all judgments of
participant employees in the subject group have equal importance.
According to answers of the employees, all factors are compared with the others and
their values are presented in following figures (Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3, Figure 3.4,
Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6). 0.1 is taken as a base value in order to eliminate some factors,
which have low scores. Outcomes of Expert Choice, which are under 0.1, are
47

eliminated, and outcomes, which are above 0.1, are taken as more important factors
and they are used in Job Satisfaction Survey.
Opportunities and Self-Improvement factors are seen at the forefront ones relative
to the other two factors.

Figure 3.2 Expert Choice Output of Importance Level of Main Factors

Opportunities: 0.45
Self-Improvement: 0.23
Working Conditions: 0.16
Internal Group Dynamics and Communication in the Department: 0.17
Analysis of the sub-factors in the main factor groups is as follows:
First of all, for Opportunities main factor; overseas appointment, master degree
opportunity, working in preferred department and participating into international
and national meetings are more important factors according to base value of 0.1;
comparing with all other factors which are listed in the Figure 3.3.
In addition, overseas appointment opportunity and master degree opportunity are
the most important ones.

Figure 3.3 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of

Opportunities

48

Overseas appointment: 0.29

Master degree opportunity: 0.23
Working in preferred department: 0.19
Participating into international and national meetings: 0.14
When looking at the sub-factors in the main factor Self- Improvement, all factors are
resulted as more important according to base value of 0.1. These are training
opportunities in Turkey or abroad (certificate programs etc.), appreciations &
rewards, working in the projects that develop the capabilities of the employee.
Among them, the most important factor is training opportunities in the country or
abroad.

Figure 3.4 Expert Choice Output of Importance Level of Self- Improvement

Training opportunities in Turkey or abroad (certificate programs etc.): 0.53
Appreciations & rewards: 0.27
Working in the projects that develop the capabilities of the employee: 0.20
For the main factor Internal Group Dynamics and Communication in the Department;
equal chance among employees to access to opportunities in the department, equal
workload among employees in the department, cooperation between department
members, style of supervision and communication with colleagues in the
department are the more important factors.
Among these important factors, equal chance among employees to access to
opportunities in the department becomes the most important factor.

49

Figure 3.5 Expert Choice Output Corresponding To Importance Level of Internal

Group Dynamics and Communication in the Department
Equal workload among employees in the department: 0.31
Equal chance among employees to access to opportunities in the department: 0.17
Cooperation between department members: 0.16
Style of supervision: 0.15
Good communication with colleagues in the department: 0.11
For the main factor Working Conditions; workload that could be completed in
working hours, work-related responsibilities given to employee, importance of
task), clarity of job description, time constrain to complete work and physical
conditions are the more important factors.
Among these important factors, workload that could be completed in working hours
and work-related responsibilities are the most important factors.

Figure 3.6 Expert Choice Output of Importance Level of Working Conditions

Workload that could be completed in working hours: 0.21
Work-related responsibilities given to employee: 0.20
Importance of task for institution: 0.14
Clarity of job description: 0.13
Physical conditions: 0.12
Time constrain to complete work: 0.11
50

Next stage after the determination of the values is to check the Consistency Index.
Consistency Index is a tool that determines the consistency of the judgments. This index
would enable us to make checks on subjective evaluations. Inconsistency may be
considered as a tolerable error in measurement only when it lowers ordered magnitude
(10 %); otherwise, the consistency would bias the result with a sizeable error or
exceeds the actual measurement itself (Saaty, 1994, pp 27). The consistency is
determined by using the eigenvalue, max, to calculate the consistency index, CI as
follows: CI= ( max n)/(n-1) where n is the number of criteria .
When the subject group of the study consists of individuals who work closely together
by interacting and influencing, they usually justify their judgments, therefore, the
deterministic approach would be appropriate and inconsistency realized as low level in
this case. When a large number of geographically scattered individuals provide the
judgments, a statistical procedure would be appropriate, and inconsistency between
individuals would be much more than inconsistency of a small and close group. In this
study, since matrices including judgments are combined by calculating the geometric
mean of the entries, AHP model checks out the consistency of judgments in a proper
way. Values of consistency index can be seen in the figures above. The consistency
ratio of the problems are around 0.02-0.09 for main factor groups and sub-factors, so,
all of them are lower the 0.1 threshold value.

3.4. Methodology of Job Satisfaction Survey

After the determination of the factors considered as being more important and valuable
for the employees, the availability of these factors within the institution is investigated
and satisfaction levels of employees about these prominent factors are defined.
3.4.1. Preparation and Execution of Job Satisfaction Survey
After the execution and evaluation of the data by AHP method, important, and
outstanding factors are obtained. These outstanding factors which will be used in Job
Satisfaction Survey are listed below as main headings and sub-factors:
1-) Opportunities: Overseas appointment, master degree opportunity, working in
preferred department, participating into international and national meetings

51

2-) Internal Group Dynamics and Communication in the Department: Equal chance
among employees to access to opportunities in the department, equal workload among
employees in the department, style of supervision, cooperation between department
members, good communication with colleagues in the department
3-) Self-Improvement: Training opportunities in Turkey or abroad (certificate programs
etc.), appreciations & rewards about successes related with job, working in the projects
that develop the capabilities of the employee
4-) Working Conditions: Workload that could be completed in working hours, workrelated responsibilities given to employee, importance of task, physical conditions, time
constrain to complete work, clarity of job description
In order to determine the availability level and satisfaction level of the outstanding
factors within the institution, the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire forms are prepared.
Likert Scale is used in the questions for evaluations of employees. In this technique, the
scoring is based on 5 different points which are ranging from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree in the questionnaire, employees were asked whether they are satisfied
or not about each factor. Job Satisfaction Questionnaire form is presented in the
Appendix B.
Likert Scale has the rating mechanism as follows:

1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3 No idea

4 Agree

5 Strongly Agree

For the survey, instead of handing out paper-based forms, web-based questionnaire
forms are used. The help of information technologies department of the institution is
received again in order to implement the questionnaire to the employees in this stage. In
addition, another survey application program for the questionnaire is generated and
Likert Scale structure of the form was transferred to web-based platform. After that,
similar to the previous questionnaire form, a brief explanation about the second stage of
the study and usage of the web-based platform are sent to the employees by e-mail
having the link of the webpage.

52

Each employee, who prefers to participate in the second part of the study, answers the
questions and marks the number 1-5, which found to be convenient for him/her. End of
the expiration date of the survey, after one week, 70 employees participated in Job
Satisfaction Survey. At the beginning of the job satisfaction survey, employees
demographic/personal information which are gender, educational level and seniority,
are asked. Gender, educational level, and seniority are included to the questionnaire as
independent variables. Related demographic information of the participant employees
will be explained in the part of Results of Job Satisfaction Survey in detail.
3.4.2. Results of Job Satisfaction Survey
Job Satisfaction Survey is conducted on the personnel in order to identify to understand
what extent the public institution satisfies employees about the predetermined and
prominent factors. All data is collected through the questionnaires and SPSS 21.0
software program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is used to analyze the
results of the Job Satisfaction Survey.
All of the answers for each questions are exported to the excel format via web-basedsurvey. Then, SPSS is used for analysis of the data. This data is used to test, whether
there is a significant difference in satisfaction levels, when demographic variables are
considered as a main parameter. All the results of analysis, including variance analysis,
will be explained in the following parts in this chapter.
3.4.3. Demographic Findings
Demographic properties of participants and general information about them are
examined in this part.
Demographic properties of the employees who participated in this study can be grouped
and examined according to gender, educational level, and number of years within the
organization (seniority). Since;
Gender could be considered as an important independent variable and man and
woman could be affected differently in terms of job satisfaction.

53

 Educational level of the employees such as having master degree is another

important parameter for job satisfaction and job satisfaction can differ according
to the educational level.
Number of years within the organization is also an important independent
variable that can change the perception of employees about job satisfaction.
In this study, workers are grouped into two categories in terms of educational level,
which includes employees having BS and MS degree. In addition, workers are grouped
into three categories according to their seniority as 0-3 years of experience, 3-10 years
of experience and over 10 years of working experience. Employees with 0-3 years of
experience are assistant experts, employees with over 3-10 years of experience are
experts, and employees over 10 years of experience are senior and experienced
personnel. Frequencies of these categorical variables are presented in the following
table.
Table 3.3 Frequencies of Demographic Variables
Frequency

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Gender

Male
Female

41
29

58.6
41.4

58.6
100

Educational Level

Undergraduate
Graduate

41
29

58.6
41.4

58.6
100

Seniority

0-3 Years
3-10 Years
> 10 Years

37
20
13

52.9
28.6
18.6

52.9
100
71.4

Total

70

100

100

Number of females and males are 41 and 29, respectively in the subject group of our
study. It means that 59 % of the total sample is men and 41 % is women. When looking
at the population of the institution according to gender groups, 58 % of the population is
consisted of males and 42 % is consisted of females. This shows that our sample
represent the whole population well.
In terms of educational level, 41 of them have BS degree and 29 of them have MS
degree, in other words, 59 % of the total sample consists of employees with
undergraduate degree and 41 % consists of employees with graduate degree. For the
54

whole employee population of the institution, the ratios are 72 % and 28 %, respectively
for people with undergraduate and graduate degree. By looking these data, it can be said
that our subject group consists of more people with graduate degree compared with the
whole population.
According to seniority, 37 of the employees (53 %) in the sample are in the group of the
0-3 years of experience, 20 of them (29 %) are in the group of 3-10 years of experience,
and 13 of them (18 %) are the group of over 10 years of experience. Therefore, it can be
said that almost half of the participants have been working for less than three years, and
this means, most of participants are young people. According to data of the whole
population of the institution, 26 % of employees are in the group of the 0-3 years of
experience, 41 % of them are in the group of 3-10 years of experience, and 33 % are in
the group of over 10 years of experience. This data is different from our samples, since
our study consists of more employees that are less than 10 years of experience.
For this kind of studies, frequencies of a demographic factor should be well balanced
for better comparisons between groups with independent variables. In this study, it is
assumed that demographic factors of participants are representative for the institution to
make analyses.
3.4.4. Mean Values of Job Satisfaction Factors
Analysis of the factors, in which employees are satisfied/dissatisfied with their job, is
made in this part of the chapter. After representation of demographic factors,
descriptive statistics of four main factors and sub factors are examined. Mean values of
main factors can be seen in Table 3.4. Sub-factor satisfaction scores are calculated by
taking averages of the answers from all participants for the corresponding sub-factors.
Mean values of main factors are calculated by taking averages of all sub-factors within
the related main factor. Overall satisfaction level is the average of the satisfaction levels
of main factors.

In this study, it is assumed that weight of each factor is equal; in other words, it is
assumed that all factors have equal effect on the satisfaction levels and all analyses
throughout this part are made according to this assumption. The reason of equal weight
assumption is from the same assumptions in this kind of studies in the literature.
55

According to Quinn and Mangione (1973), Most models for weighting job satisfaction
by importance ratings assume a tabula rasa situation, an absence of preconceived ideas a clean slate, in which all satisfaction items (or indices) have initially equal weights to
which the importance ratings are then applied. As can be seen from Quinn and
Mangiones study, equal weight assumption allows using unbiased factors for our
study.
Table 3.4 Mean Values and Standard Deviation of Main Factors

Mean
Std.
Deviation

Opportunities

SelfImprovement

Internal Group
Dynamics

Working
Overall
Conditions Sat. Level

2.76

2.47

3.29

2.84

2.84

0.825

0.785

0.75

0.752

0.557

As mentioned in the previous part of the chapter, the Likert Scale has consisted of 1 to 5
rating system. Thus, 1 means pretty poor satisfaction, 2 means poor satisfaction, 3
means average satisfaction level, 4 means good satisfaction and 5 means pretty good
satisfaction levels.
It is observed that mean value of overall satisfaction is realized as 2.84. This value
indicates that a general satisfaction level of the employees with the institution is at a
mediocre level. Moreover, the scores of the items show that Internal Group Dynamics
which is greater than 3, is higher than the other groups of factors with the satisfaction
level of 3.29. Self-Improvement factor has the lowest with a satisfaction level of 2.47.

56

Table 3.5 Mean Values of Sub-Factors

Main Factors

Sub-factors

2.94
3.14
2.43

Std.
Deviation
1.10
1.35
1.19

2.54

1.10

2.74

1.03

2.27

1.15

2.39

0.97

2.61

1.17

2.51

1.23

3.23

1.14

3.89

0.94

4.19

0.82

3.24

1.44

2.97

1.08

3.07
2.01

1.13
1.23

2.89

1.15

2.86

1.23

Mean

Overseas Appointment
Master Degree
Opportunities
Working in Preferred Department
Participating into International and
National Meetings
Training Opportunities in the Country
and Abroad
Working in the Projects that Develop
Self-Improvement
the Capabilities of Employees
Appreciations & Rewards
Equal Chance among Employees to
Access to Opportunities in the
Department
Equal Workload among Employees in
the Department
Internal Group Dynamics Style of Supervision (such as
autocratic or democratic)
Cooperation between the Department
Members
Communication with Colleagues in
the Department
Workload That Could Be Completed
in Working Hours
Work-Related Responsibilities given
to Employees
Importance of Tasks for Institution
Working Conditions
Physical Conditions
Time Pressure to Complete a Given
Task
Clear Job Description

Sub-factors have different satisfaction level as can be seen in the table above. Beside
overall satisfaction level, facet approach is beneficial for observing deeply which
factors of the work is more satisfied / dissatisfied. The results also show that, in
Opportunities heading, overseas appointment opportunity and master degree
opportunity are important factors for the employees in the institution, however, have
moderate satisfaction level since mean values of them are close to 3. Working in their
preferred department and participating in international and national meetings are
seen considerably low according to satisfaction levels. For Internal Group Dynamics
heading, cooperation between department members and communication with
57

colleagues in the department are the most satisfying factors for employees within this
main factor and among all sub-factors. Style of supervisors is higher than most of the
factors with the value of 3.23. Chance to access to the opportunities and workload
among employees in the department are not seemed equally distributed since their
satisfaction levels are 2.61 and 2.51 respectively. For Working Conditions heading,
the average mean value of items is mediocre. For this factor, employees are not
sufficiently satisfied with work-related responsibilities given to them. For the mean
value of importance of task and clarity of job description, any predominant opinion
could not be obtained positively or negatively since mean values of the factors are close
to 3. Similarly, time constrains to complete work has mediocre satisfaction level.
Workload that could be completed within working hours is considered to be satisfied
more than other factors. Physical conditions have the worst satisfaction value among all
sub-factors. the average mean value of items is found as 2.76. It means that employees
generally are not satisfied with their works. Moreover, the mean value of SelfImprovement is found as 2.47 that is the worst satisfaction level among all other main
factors. Training opportunities in Turkey or abroad are not considered as satisfying
with the mean values of 2.74. Also, working in the projects that develop the
capabilities of the employee factor is met by the institution at very low level and it is
appeared that employees are not satisfied with these personal growth opportunities. The
mean value of this factor is found as 2.27 and this value is the second worst value
among the mean values of all factors. Also, people are not satisfied with the rewards
and appreciations given by managers, since its mean value is 2.39.
As a result, for employees working in this institution Internal group dynamics and
communications in the department is observed to be satisfied; on the other hand,
Opportunities, Working Conditions, and especially Self-Improvement are not
satisfied sufficiently. Results also imply that employees are not very satisfied in general
point of view. The results are discussed and recommendations are made in Chapter 4
and Chapter 5.
3.4.5. Normality Tests
Normality test was used for total satisfaction, main factors and sub-factors in each
group of independent variables by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
58

Threshold significance value is taken as the level of 5% because small p-value (p

0.05) indicates strong evidence. Normality test in each group of independent variables
are applied and null hypothesis is constructed such that data of the group is normally
distributed. If the significant level of any group is above the 5% level, null hypothesis
cannot be rejected. This means that the considering data is normally distributed.
Normality test of total satisfaction revealed that the values of total satisfaction in each
group of independent variables are normal, since significant levels of the groups are
above the 5% level of threshold significance value and null hypothesis cannot be
rejected. These values are represented in the following three tables (Table 3.6, Table
3.7, and Table 3.8)
Table 3.6 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Gender Groups
Gender
Total
Satisfaction

Male
Female

Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
*
.066
41
.200
.990
41
.971
*
.114
29
.200
.965
29
.433

Table 3.7 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Educational Level Groups
Kolmogorov-Smirnovb

Educational
Level
Undergraduate
Total
Satisfaction Graduate

Statistic
.076
.126

df
41
29

Shapiro-Wilk

Sig.
Statistic
*
.200
.990
.200*
.956

df
41
29

Sig.
.968
.259

Table 3.8 Test of Normality for Total Satisfaction in Seniority Groups

Seniority

Total
Satisfaction

0-3
3-10
> 10

Kolmogorov-Smirnovb
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
*
.068
37
.200
.977
37
.638
*
.087
20
.200
.974
20
.837
*
.152
13
.200
.957
13
.710

Secondly, normality test of 4 main factors in each group of independent variables

were performed. Normality test for 4 main factors realized that almost all values of
the satisfaction level of each main factor in each independent variable group are normal
59

since significant levels of the groups are above the 5% level of threshold significance
value. However, for a few of them, null hypothesis is rejected. Data of SelfImprovement factor in terms of gender groups and educational level groups are
not normally distributed. Also, data of Opportunities factor for seniority group of
over 10 years experience and Internal Group Dynamics factor for seniority group
of over 0-3 years experience are not normally distributed. Results of these tests are
represented in the following three tables (Table 3.9, Table 3.10, and Table 3.11)
Lastly, normality tests of sub-factors within the main factors for groups of gender,
educational level, and seniority are also performed. Any of data of independent variable
groups for each sub-factor is not normally distributed, given in Appendix C.
Table 3.9 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Gender Groups

Gender
Opportunities
Self-Improvement
Internal Group
Dynamics
Working Conditions

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig. Statistic

df

Sig.

Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male

.117
.128
.165
.163
.100
.149
.096

41
29
41
29
41
29
41

.174
.200*
.007
.049
.200*
.098
.200*

.974
.971
.954
.951
.974
.972
.980

41
29
41
29
41
29
41

.473
.600
.093
.194
.471
.606
.678

Female

.092

29

.200*

.976

29

.742

Table 3.10 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Educational Level Groups
Educational Level
Undergraduate
Graduate
SelfUndergraduate
Improvement Graduate
Internal
Undergraduate
Group
Graduate
Dynamics
Undergraduate
Working
Conditions
Graduate
Opportunities

Kolmogorov-Smirnovb
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df
Sig. Statistic df Sig.
.113
41 .200*
.973 41 .417
.155
29
.072
.938 29 .086
.140
41
.949 41 .063
.041
.210
29
.944 29 .127
.002
.118
41
.166
.978 41 .612
.140
29
.153
.950 29 .185
.125
.093
60

41
29

.106
.200*

.968
.970

41 .288
29 .566

Table 3.11 Test of Normality for 4 Main Factors in Seniority Groups

Seniority
0-3
Opportunities
3-10
> 10
0-3
Self-Improvement
3-10
> 10
0-3
Internal Group
3-10
Dynamics
> 10
0-3
Working Conditions 3-10
> 10

Kolmogorov-Smirnovb
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic df
Sig.
.133
37
.096
.969
37 .391
*
.137
20
.200
.954
20 .429
.250
13
.896
13 .117
.026
*
.119
37
.200
.966
37 .320
.184
20
.074
.930
20 .156
*
.146
13
.200
.921
13 .257
.153
37
.960
37 .208
.028
*
.121
20
.200
.938
20 .223
*
.185
13
.200
.936
13 .409
*
.092
37
.200
.968
37 .362
.165
20
.156
.923
20 .115
.095
13
.200*
.973
13 .928

3.4.6. Findings about Effects of Demographic Factors, Gender, Seniority, &

Educational Level
For the total satisfaction level, variance analysis (One Way ANOVA) is performed
between all groups of demographic factors; gender, educational level and seniority.
ANOVA is a parametric test to analyze normally distributed data. Since all data groups
in each independent variable are normally distributed in terms of total satisfaction,
ANOVA is used in this part of the analyses. In addition, it is assumed that p-value is
based on significance level of 5% for all analysis in this thesis. A small p-value
(p0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis; however, a large p-value
(p>0.05) indicates weak evidence against the null hypothesis. In order to make strong
presumption against null hypothesis, p-value is taken as 0.05. So, hypothesis is rejected
when p-value is less than predetermined significance level of 0.05 (p<0.05), otherwise,
it is fail to reject (p>0.05).
One Way ANOVA is used in the existence of two assumptions. One of them is that
each group should come from normal distribution. The second one is that variance of
groups should be homogenous. In both tests, p-values (Sig.) must be greater than 0.05
so that null hypothesis is not rejected, in this case, the data is distributed normally and
homogenously. Normality tests of total satisfaction score showed normal distribution as

61

explained previous part. Results of homogeneity tests of variances (Levene statistics)

are also presented below in Table 3.12. According to these results, assumption of
variance homogeneity held for all groups of demographic factors.
When analyzing the significance of each group in demographic factors in terms of
overall satisfaction, null hypothesis is constructed. First, male and female are not
different according to overall job satisfaction. Second, employee groups having BS and
MS degrees are not different in terms of overall job satisfaction. Third, employee
groups with 0 to 3 years of experiences, 3 to 10 years and over 10 years of experiences
are not different in terms of overall job satisfaction. None of null hypothesis cannot be
rejected since all significant levels are above the 5% level of threshold significant value
(p=0.05). It means that there is no significant difference in the overall job satisfaction
level of each group of independent variables.
Table 3.12 Results of ANOVA Interdependent Variable and Total Satisfaction

N
Males
41
Female
29
Educational Undergraduate 41
Level
Graduate
29
Gender

Seniority

0-3 Years
3-10 Years
> 10 Years

37
20
13

Mean

Std.
Deviation

2.74
2.98
2.79

0.595
0.475
0.555

2.91

0.562

2.92
2.88
2.56

0.531
0.581
0.548

Homogenity
of Variance
(Sig.)

ANOVA
(Sig.)

0.171

0.081

0.925

0.385

0.907

0.136

According to results of ANOVA, as seen on Table 3.12, any significant difference in

terms of total satisfaction was not identified among employees in the groups of gender,
educational level, and seniority since their significant values are higher than 0.05.
In order to investigate effects of the independent variables on job satisfaction of 4
main factors, multivariate variance analysis (MANOVA) is performed. Effects of each
independent variable on all main factors are examined one by one.

62

MANOVA is also a parametric test for analyzing normally distributed data. In addition
to assumptions of ANOVA (normality and homogeneity), MANOVA also assumes that
covariance matrices of dependent variables are equal across groups. For this assumption
to hold, equality of covariance matrices of Boxs test is used. In this test, if Sig. value is
greater than 0.05, null hypothesis is not rejected. Therefore, it is concluded that
covariance matrices are equal. Also, Levenes test is used for testing equality of
variances.
Before performing MANOVA, normality tests are applied for groups of each
independent variable (as seen in previous part of the chapter). It is seen that almost all
groups in terms of main factors are normally distributed except for a few of factors.
In this context, it is investigated that whether MANOVA could be used when data is not
normal. In the literature, Finch (2005) compared the performance of a non-parametric
and parametric test. He examined the two assumption of MANOVA, normality or
homogenous of variances. He found that when the assumption of homogenous of
variances is not met, the nonparametric approach is more robust with a lower type 1
error rate and higher power than parametric analysis. However, when the assumption of
normality is not met, the parametric statistics becomes robust and outperforms the
nonparametric statistic in terms of type 1 error and power. Therefore, MANOVA could
be performed, despite violation of normality assumption.
In the light of this information, in this thesis, MANOVA is used for all main factors
including the ones that are not normally distributed. However, Non-Parametric Test is
also performed on non-normal distributed factors for the confirmation of MANOVA
results, additionally. Non-Parametric Tests reveal the same results in terms of Sig.
values, despite different figures. Results of Non-Parametric Tests are given in Appendix
E.
In MANOVA, when analyzing the significance of groups in demographic factors in
terms of main factors, null hypothesis are constructed as follows. Firstly, male and
female are not different in terms of main factors satisfaction. Secondly, employee
groups having BS and MS degrees 4 main factors are not different in terms of main

63

factors satisfaction. Thirdly, employee groups seniority groups a not different in terms
of main factors satisfaction.
Results of multivariate tests, Boxs test, Levenes test and Sig. values are presented in
the tables presented below (Table 3.13, Table 3.14, and Table 3.15). Assumption of
variance homogeneity held for all groups of demographic factors and covariance
matrices are equal. Also, results show that significant levels of Internal Group
Dynamics factor group is considerably lower than 5% and this means that groups in
seniority is significantly different in terms of this factor. On the other hand, there is
no significant difference on satisfaction level of men or women in terms of the main
factors. In addition, satisfaction level of employee groups of educational level in terms
of the main factors does not show any significant difference.
Table 3.13 Results of MANOVA for Gender and Main Satisfaction Factors
Levene's Test of
Equality of Error
Variances

Source

Multivariate
Tests (Sig. of
Pillai's
Trace)

Box's Test of
Equality of
Covariance
Matrices
Box's
M
F

Gender
1:Female
2:Male

0.337

Dependent
Variable

Sig.

Test of
BetweenSubjects Effect

Sig.

12.977
1.211 Opportunities

1.117

0.294

0.288

0.593

SelfImprovement

0.86

0.357

2.943

0.091

Internal Group
Dynamics

1.559

0.216

2.375

0.128

Working
Conditions

0.221

0.64

1.654

0.203

df1

10

df2

17046.7

Sig.

0.278

64

Table 3.14 Results of MANOVA for Educational Level and Main Satisfaction Factors
Levene's Test
of Equality of
Error
Variances

Multivariate
Tests (Sig.
of Pillai's
Trace)

Source

Box's Test of
Equality of
Covariance
Matrices

Box's M

Sig.

Sig.

3.858

Educational
Level
1:Undergraduate
2:Graduate

Dependent
Variable

Test of
BetweenSubjects
Effect

0.36 Opportunities

0.004

0.952

1.277

0.262

SelfImprovement

1.114

0.295

2.235

0.14

Internal Group
Dynamics

0.122

0.728

0.295

0.589

Working
Conditions

0.753

0.389

0.131

0.719

df1

10

df2

17046.7

Sig.

0.964

0.46

Table 3.15 Results of MANOVA for Seniority and Main Satisfaction Factors
Levene's
Test of
Equality of
Error
Variances

Source

Multivariate
Tests (Sig.
of Pillai's
Trace)

Box's Test of
Equality of
Covariance
Matrices
Box's
M

Seniority
1: 0-3 Years
2: 3-10
Years
3:>10Years

F
0.261

Dependent
Variable

Sig.

Test of BetweenSubjects Effect

Sig.

30.948
1.377 Opportunities

df1

20

df2

5472.2

Sig.

0.122

4.276 0.018

0.942

0.395

0.515

0.6

1.137

0.327

Internal Group
0.004 0.996
Dynamics

3.877

0.026*

Working
Conditions

0.192

0.826

SelfImprovement

65

0.408 0.666

After MANOVA analysis, to investigate where the difference comes from, additional
analysis should be made. If there exists two categories in a variable, it can be easily
interpreted by looking means of satisfaction levels of these groups that which group is
more satisfied. Thus, for educational level and gender, the results can be seen clearly by
looking the mean values table. However, if there exists more than two groups in a
demographic factor, in order to determine which groups are significantly differs from
each other; post-hoc analysis must be performed. Therefore, this analysis is applied for
seniority.
For gender and educational level, it can be observed that the mean values of the groups
in each demographic variable are close to each other. Male and female employees
satisfaction levels in terms of main factors do not show so much difference. Also, there
is no significant difference between employees having MS and BS degrees in terms of
main factors. It means that having MS and BS degrees do not create so much difference
between peoples perception about the work.
Table 3.16 Mean Values of Dependent Main Factors for Educational Level Groups
Educatonal
Level

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Undergraduate
Graduate
Undergraduate
Self-Improvement
Graduate
Undergraduate
Internal Group
Dynamics
Graduate
Undergraduate
Working
Conditions
Graduate

41
29
41
29
41
29
41
29

2.67
2.90
2.35
2.63
3.33
3.23
2.81
2.88

0.809
0.844
0.813
0.726
0.772
0.727
0.713
0.817

Dependent
Variable
Opportunities

66

Table 3.17 Mean Values of Dependent Main Factors for Gender Groups

Dependent
Variable

Gender

Female
Male
Female
Self-Improvement
Male
Female
Internal Group
Dynamics
Male
Female
Working
Conditions
Male

Mean

29
41
29
41
29
41
29
41

Opportunities

2.83
2.72
2.66
2.33
3.45
3.17
2.98
2.74

Std.
Deviation
0.744
0.884
0.748
0.792
0.673
0.787
0.785
0.722

Results of MANOVA imply that groups of seniority are significantly different in

terms of Internal Group Dynamics factor, but, which group of seniority is less/more
satisfied should be analyzed with Post Hoc analysis. There are more than two groups of
the independent variables in seniority, therefore, post-hoc analysis is performed in
this group. At this point, it is important to check significance level by the pairwise
comparisons of three groups of employees having 3 years of experience, between 3-10
years and over 10 years of experience. It is observed that employees having 3 years of
experience are more satisfied than employees having 10 years of experience in terms of
Internal Group Dynamics. This means that younger people are not as dissatisfied as
senior personnel are on this factor.
In addition, in post-hoc analysis applied for the groups of seniority, Tukey HSD test is
used. These tests can be used only if homogeneity of variances assumption holds. On
the other hand, results of Tamhanes T2 should be used instead of Tukey since
assumption of variance homogeneity cannot hold. In this study, since the assumption is
hold for seniority variable, results of Tukey test are used. Post-hoc analysis table of
seniority variable is presented in Table 3.18. As seen in the table, difference exists
between the first and the third groups and also between the second and third groups.

67

Table 3.18 Post Hoc Analysis of Main Factors in MANOVA for Seniority Variable

Dependent
Variable

Internal Group
Dynamics

Test

Tukey
HSD

(I)
Seniority

Mean

1: 0-3
Years

3.3892

2: 3-10
Years

3.42

3: > 10
Years

(J)
Seniority

Mean
Difference
(I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

3-10 Years

-0.0308

0.19986

0.987

> 10 Years

.6046

0.23218

0.03

0-3 Years

0.0308

0.19986

0.987

0.25655

0.041

-.6046

0.23218

0.03*

-.6354

0.25655

0.041*

> 10 Years
0-3 Years

2.7846

3-10 Years

.6354

In addition to total satisfaction and main factor satisfaction, in terms of the job
satisfaction of sub-factors, in order to investigate effects of the independent variables,
Non-Parametric Tests are used. Since the corresponding data of sub factors is not
distributed normally, Non-Parametric Tests are used and null hypothesis are constructed
as follows. Firstly, male and female are not different in terms of sub-factors
satisfaction. Secondly, employee groups having BS and MS degrees are not different in
terms of sub-factors satisfaction. Thirdly, employee groups having 3 years of
experience, 3-10 years of experience and over 10 years of experience are not different
in terms of sub-factors satisfaction. In this part of the analysis, results of NonParametric Independent Sample Tests are presented in Appendix D.
Satisfaction levels related with working in the projects that develop the capabilities of
the employee and work-related responsibilities given to employee are resulted
different in gender groups. Females showed more satisfaction than males showed, since
males may attach more importance to self- improvement and taking responsibility. In
order to see the significant difference explicitly, mean values are shown in the table
below (Table 3.19). As it can be seen in Appendix D, there is no significant difference
between groups of educational level in terms of sub-factors.

68

Table 3.19 Mean Values of Sub-Factors as Dependent Variable for Gender as

Independent Variable

Dependent Variable

Gender

Working In the Projects

That Develop The
Capabilities Of The
Employee

Female
Male

Work-Related
Female
Responsibilities Given To
Employee
Male

95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Lower
Bound
Bound

Mean

Std.
Deviation

29

2.62

0.209

2.204

3.037

41

2.02

0.175

1.674

2.374

29

3.28

0.996

2.886

3.666

41

2.76

1.09

2.428

3.084

At this point, which group of seniority is less/more satisfied should be analyzed with
Post Hoc analysis. It is observed from the table below (Table 3.20) that employees
having over 10 years of experience are less satisfied with the factors overseas
appointment and equal chance to access to opportunities in the department.
According to the results, assistant experts, who are in the group of employees having 03 years of experience, are more satisfied with these factors than chief experts are, and
dissatisfaction with overseas appointment arises significantly after 3 years. This study
also showed that satisfaction level of equal chance to access to opportunities
decreases after significantly 10 years of experience. It means that younger employees
are more satisfied about obtaining opportunity for overseas appointment and obtaining
equal chance to access to opportunities.

69

Table 3.20 Post Hoc Analysis of Sub-Factors in MANOVA for Seniority Variable

Dependent Variable

Overseas Appointment

Test

Tukey
HSD

Equal Chance among

Employees to Access to Tukey
HSD
Opportunities in the
Department

(I)
Seniority

Mean

0-3
Years

3.11

3-10
Years

3.15

(J)
Seniority
3-10
Years
> 10
Years
0-3 Years

> 10
Years

2.15

0-3
Years

2.7

3-10
Years

2.95

> 10
Years

1.85

Std.
Error

Sig.

-0.04

0.291

0.989

.95*

0.338

0.017

0.04

0.291

0.989

> 10
Years

1.00*

0.374

0.026

0-3 Years

-.95*

0.338

0.017*

-1.00*

0.374

0.026*

-0.25

0.311

0.708

0.86

0.362

0.054

0.25

0.311

0.708

> 10
Years

1.10*

0.4

0.02

0-3 Years

-0.86

0.362

0.054

-1.10*

0.4

0.02*

3-10
Years
3-10
Years
> 10
Years
0-3 Years

70

Mean
Difference
(I-J)`

3-10
Years

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The aim of this study is to determine the important factors that affect the job
satisfaction of employees working in a particular public institution and to investigate to
what extent the public institution satisfies the needs of its employees in terms of these
prominent factors. The outcomes of the study are discussed in detail throughout this
chapter.
As a result of this study, overall satisfaction score is 2.84 which is the average of 18
important factors. The scoring is between 1 and 5, and average satisfaction is
represented by 3. This means that employees are not quite satisfied with their jobs. This
value brings a general perspective about job satisfaction of employees in the institution.
Factor satisfaction will be discussed after the evaluations of overall satisfaction.
According to the results of the study, in addition to descriptive statistics of the job
satisfaction factors, the significance levels of factors are investigated in terms of
demographic factors. Findings show that there is no significant difference between men
and women in terms of overall job satisfaction (2.74, 2.98, respectively). In the
literature, according to some researches, job satisfaction level of men is higher than
women. For example, the result of the study in Turkish major research institution
conducted by Harputlu (2014) indicates that males are more satisfied with some factors
in terms of general satisfaction. On the other hand, other previous studies commonly
propose that job satisfaction level of females is higher than males. Kim (2005)s study
indicates that there are three main explanations why women are more satisfied than men
are. First reason is that women have lower expectations than men do. In other words,
71

since females expect from work less, they are satisfied with less. Second reason is that
women may not prefer to express their discontent, therefore, they seems more satisfied.
The final reason is that women and men may value different characteristics in a job so
that there could be a difference between their satisfaction levels. In the light of this
information, the findings of our study may be attributed that male and female
employees in our subject group have similar expectations and they value similar
characteristics towards their jobs in this institution.
Findings obtained from this study also show that, there is no significant difference in
overall job satisfaction level between employee groups of different educational levels,
which correspond to bachelors degree and masters degree. Some previous researches
showed that, if educational level of employees increases, their expectations also
increase from their job. Therefore, increase in educational level of employees may
cause dissatisfaction about their job (Sun, 2002). In our study, findings indicate that
their expectation levels are close to each other in the groups of employees having BS
and MS degree. Therefore, it can be said that having MS or BS degrees do not create
much difference in peoples perception about their work.
Another finding about overall satisfaction is that there is a significant difference
between employees with 0-3 years of experience and over 10 years of experience.
People who have 0-3 years of experience are more satisfied with their jobs. It can be
because of the enthusiasm and dynamism of the young employees towards their jobs,
compared to the senior employees. Our results are also supported by the study of De
Santis and Durst who says that seniority and job satisfaction are negatively related
(Green, 2000).
In addition to overall satisfaction, facet approach is used in this study since it provides
detailed analysis to detect high and low areas of job satisfaction. Findings about the
main factors and sub-factors are discussed in the following parts.
4.1. Discussion about Main Factors
According to the study, in terms of the importance levels and satisfaction levels of the
main factors, Opportunities is considered to be the most important factor among other
72

main factors; however, this factor is not considered to be satisfied by the employees
since its satisfaction level is 2.76. Internal Group Dynamics is realized as the most
satisfied main factor with the level of 3.39, while Self-Improvement factor has the
lowest satisfaction level of 2.47. These results indicate that inter-relations between
employees are satisfactory but personal development opportunities are not satisfied
sufficiently by the institution. This may attributed that while factors that are mainly
supplied by the institution realized as dissatisfied, the interrelationships that are created
by employees themselves are seen as more satisfied.
In terms of demographic factors, it is observed that there is no significant difference on
the satisfaction level of men and women for each main factor.
According to the results of this study, no significant difference in employee groups
having BS and MS degrees is observed in terms of main factors.
In terms of Internal Group Dynamics, employees with 0-3 years experience are more
satisfied than employees with over 10 years of experience. Results of our study may be
attributed that young and beginner employees have better and strong relationships with
their colleagues and their supervisors.
As mentioned before, it is assumed that weights of job satisfaction factors are equal,
therefore, all sub-factors have equal effect on the satisfaction levels, and all analyses are
made according to this assumption. However, in this study, the weights of job
satisfaction factors are obtained from the results of AHP, also. Therefore, additional
concept is defined in order to make comparison of importance levels (weights) and
satisfaction levels of factors, which is called as dissatisfaction ratio. Dissatisfaction
Ratio is a ratio proportional with the importance level (vi) of the factor and inversely
proportional with the availability (ui) of the factor. The importance level (vi) is the
outcomes of AHP survey, and the availability level (ui) is the normalized values of the
outcomes of job satisfaction survey. Dissatisfaction ratio is calculated by dividing vi to
ui (vi/ui). By using this ratio, Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio (ci) is formulated as ci

i=1,..,n. The reason of taking percentages of factors is that the

percentage enables us to compare all sub-factors with each other easily. When the
importance level of a factor is high and the availability of a factor in the institution is
73

low, dissatisfaction ratio and percent dissatisfaction ratio of that factor becomes high. In
other words, higher percent dissatisfaction ratio indicates that the corresponding factor
needs to be paid more attention. Therefore, percent dissatisfaction ratio has a negative
meaning in it. With the help of the percent dissatisfaction ratio, the institution could
observe and evaluate which factors are more important for employees and which factors
are less satisfied (having less availability level) in the institution. This means that the
factors are more important and less satisfied compared with the other factors. More
importance should be attached to these factors, which have higher ci values, in order to
improve satisfaction level of them.
4.1.1. Opportunities
According to this study, overseas appointment opportunity and master degree
opportunity are the most important sub-factors for the job satisfaction of employees as
far as the Opportunities is concerned. They are regarded as special opportunities of
the institution. Therefore, they deserve special attention in the institution.
Overseas appointment opportunity has the highest ci value, as presented in Table 4.1.
This value indicates that although it is very important factor (0.29 out of 1); the
satisfaction level of overseas appointment is not sufficient (2.94). For overseas
appointment, there are determined countries where a senior diplomat is assigned; and
there exists limited places (there are 158 cities, all of which have an attach) for the
institution to send their employees. Therefore, the employees generally might not have
a chance to go the place that they want. This might cause dissatisfaction for them.
In addition, the satisfaction levels of seniority groups are significantly different in
overseas appointment. Employees with over 10 years of experience are less satisfied
than younger employees. This might be resulted from the institutions policies about
assigning young employees, who are more dynamic and enthusiastic for overseas
appointment. This study indicates that as seniority increases, expectations of
employees are not met by the institution, so their disappointments cause dissatisfaction.
Although master degree opportunity is considered as one of the most important
factors (0.23 out of 1), it is obvious that its satisfaction level is mediocre (3.14 out of 5).
74

This factor provides an opportunity to obtain a master degree at top schools of the
world. Every year, 20 students, who get top scores from the criteria put by institution,
have a chance to study master degree in worlds famous schools. However, every year
approximately 80 people start to work in the institution. Therefore, this situation results
in the accumulation of the employees who want to be selected for master degree
opportunity. The employees probably think that they could not benefit from this
opportunity it causes dissatisfaction for them.
Employees also want to work in preferred department; however they do not think that
they could have a chance to choose a department in which they prefer to work. People
are accepted to start work in this institution by this way; firstly they pass a general exam
for public enterprises, secondly, they pass an exam prepared by the institution, and
finally, they pass an oral interview. After all these procedure, they might expect to
make a kind of preference list when starting the job. However, they could not have a
chance for that; therefore, the factor is not satisfactory for the employees. Also related
with this factor, it has high importance levels (0.19 out of 1 and 3rd place within
Opportunities and low satisfaction level (2.43). This means that the dissatisfaction
ratio of this factor is considerably high and it should be taken into consideration by the
institution.
Table 4.1 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Opportunities

Opportunities

AHP Results - SPSS Results

Percent
Dissatisfaction
Importance
Availability
Dissatisfaction
Ratio (vi/ui)
(vi)
(ui)
Ratio (ci)

Overseas
Appointment

0.338

0.266

1.270

32%

Master Degree

0.275

0.284

0.967

24%

Preferred Dept.

0.223

0.220

1.014

26%

Int. & Nat.

Meetings

0.164

0.230

0.715

18%

3.966

100%

Total

75

4.1.2. Self-Improvement
The mean value of Self-Improvement (2.47) shows that the employees perceive their
jobs as not contributing to their professional growth. Training opportunities in the
country or abroad has great importance, but, it is not found satisfied by workers, with
the satisfaction level of 2.74. People probably expect from their institution that further
work-related training and self-development programs all over the world should be
followed strictly and employees should be sent to these kinds of programs more
frequently.
Working in the projects that develop the capabilities is met at quite low level (2.27)
by the institution so it indicates that employees are not satisfied with the personal
growth opportunities of the institution.
Employees think that their efforts are not recognized and their performances are not
rewarded by their managers when they complete the assigned work or obtain a
successful result from a specific work. According to Kalleberg (1977) reward is
strongly correlated with job satisfaction. In addition, results of this study related with
the reward could be supported by the performance-outcome expectancy, presented in
Vrooms Expectancy Theory. If discrepancies occur between expectation and actual
outcome, this leads employee dissatisfaction (Lunenburg, 2011a). Therefore, it might be
attributed that the satisfaction level of rewards & appreciations is low in the
institution, whereas the expectancy of employees with their good performance in this
area is quite high.
In addition to given explanation above, all the three factors in this heading have high ci
values. Especially, training opportunity has the highest importance level and percent
dissatisfaction ratio of training factor (%49) is considerably high among all sub-factors.
In the light of the outcomes of the surveys and ci values of sub-factors, it is certainly
indicated that employees are not satisfied with the Self-Improvement factor and its
sub-factors.

76

Table 4.2 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Self-Improvement

SelfImprovement
Training
Self-Development
Projects
Rewards&
Appreciations
Total

AHP
SPSS Results
Percent
Results
Dissatisfaction
Availability
Dissatisfaction
Importance
Ratio (vi/ui)
(ui)
Ratio (ci)
(vi)
0.531

0.370

1.434

49%

0.267

0.307

0.870

30%

0.201

0.323

0.622

21%

2.927

100%

In terms of working in the projects that develop the capabilities of the employee
factor, gender groups show significant difference. Males have significantly low
satisfaction level compared to females. This difference could be interpreted that men
are more willing to improve themselves compared to women. According to some
previous studies in the literature, men and women have different expectations from the
job. Among the theories related with the job satisfaction, the value-percept theory
(Locke, 1976) may be more appropriate to explain this result. It argues that
discrepancies between what is desired and what is received cause dissatisfaction only if
the job satisfaction factor is important to the employee. According to Kim (2005), the
value-percept theory is better to explain gender differences in job satisfaction. Women
evaluate that the discrepancies in the factors are not so high; while, men evaluate that
the discrepancy in the job satisfaction factors is big enough for them to be dissatisfied.
4.1.3. Internal Group Dynamics
Findings of the study show that communication and cooperation with co-workers are
the most satisfied factors among all job satisfaction determinants. Employees find their
co-workers cooperative, supportive, and competent in performing the jobs. According
to previous researches, employees relationships with co-workers are important for their
success at work and establishing positive relationships at work may create more
enjoyable workspace and increase job satisfaction. Similar to our study, according to
the results of a study in Turkish major research institution conducted by Harputlu

77

(2014), relationships with co-workers are satisfactory. In addition, employees working

in this institution are satisfied with management style of their supervisors.
According to Equity Theory of Adams, if employees feel themselves as not being fairly
treated, this will result in dissatisfaction. In our study, the results of this study,
according to equal chance to access opportunities and equal workload among
employees factors, could be supported with this theory. In the light of this theory, it
can be said that if employees think that there exists inequality in workload and in given
opportunities in the department, then they are not satisfied with these factors.
Employees in this institution probably think that distribution of workload and
opportunities in the department is not fairly done by the managers.
In addition to given results above, equal chance to access opportunities has the
highest ci values in Internal Group Dynamics. According to employees, it is the most
important and almost the least satisfied factor. This factor also has the second highest
percent dissatisfaction ratio (%40) among all sub-factors. It indicates that people think
that they do not have an equal chance to access opportunities in their department.
Table 4.3 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Internal Group
Dynamics
Internal Group
Dynamics

AHP Results
Importance
(vi)

SPSS Results
Availability
(ui)

Equal Access to
Opt.

0.347

0.159

2.187

40%

Equal Workload

0.190

0.153

1.243

23%

Style of
Supervisors

0.179

0.197

0.909

17%

Cooperation

0.164

0.237

0.694

13%

Communication
btw. Co-workers

0.120

0.255

0.469

9%

5.503

100%

Total

Percent
Dissatisfaction
Dissatisfaction
Ratio (vi/ui)
Ratio (ci)

In terms of equal chance among employees to access to opportunities in the

department, seniority groups show significant difference. Employees having over 10
78

years of experience are less satisfied compared with the younger employees. Hence, it
could be said that seniors become more aware of the lack of some opportunities due to
their experiences in the work environment. Also, it could indicate that younger people
have positive feelings about their jobs, so, they are not dissatisfied with the equality
issue compared to the senior employees.
4.1.4. Working Conditions
According to employees, work-related responsibilities given to them are not enough
to be satisfied. They probably think that they are not participating the decision making
process in work related issues. Findings obtained from this study is in line with the
previous academic studies, which revealed that responsibility is an important factor for
job satisfaction and employees want to be more involved in the decision making
processes. By this way, employees feel a sense of belonging and it makes them more
satisfied and committed (Steingrimsdottir, 2011).
According to the findings of this study, employees put great importance to have proper
workload, which could be completed in working hours. People also need to spend time
outside of the work, so, in our study, workload that could be completed in the working
hours is the most important factor (importance level is 0.21 out of 1) among all factors
in working conditions. According to the results of our study, it can be said that they
are relatively satisfied with their workload with the level of 3.24. This shows that they
think their workload could be completed in working hours.
Another findings obtained from this study is that satisfaction levels of clear job
definition and importance of tasks are mediocre. Employees do not think that their jobs
and the given tasks to them are important for the institution. In other words, they do not
think that their contribution to the institution is meaningful since job descriptions are
not sufficiently clear for them.
According to results of this study, satisfaction level of physical conditions is the
lowest one among all sub-factors (2.21). It can be interpreted that employees may find
office environment not comfortable and employees are not satisfied with the current
state of the physical conditions of their working environment. In the light of this
79

information, some improvements about physical conditions need to be considered by

the institution and more comfortable work office conditions could be suggested for
efficiency of workers. Lee (2006) found in his study that workplace satisfaction is
positively correlated with the job satisfaction; it means that when employees work in
appropriate environment, the satisfaction increases. The reason of the low satisfaction
level of physical conditions in this institution is probably that, employees think that
rooms are congested and room conditions are not appropriate for working. The question
of this reason is not asked to employees openly and not obtained detailed answers from
them. In order to investigate which kind of aspects should be made better in physical
conditions, another specific study could be done.
Also from the study it is understood that, work-related responsibilities and workload
that could be completed in the working hours have the highest ci values among all
working condition related factors. Percent dissatisfaction ratio is additional critical
indicator to get the attention of the institution to take some serious steps about these
factors.
Table 4.4 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of the Sub Factors in Working Conditions
Working
Conditions

AHP Results SPSS Results

Percent
Dissatisfaction
Importance Availability
Dissatisfaction
Ratio (vi/ui)
(vi)
(ui)
Ratio (ci)

Working Hours

0.237

0.190

1.246

21%

Responsibilities

0.216

0.174

1.239

21%

Task Importance

0.154

0.180

0.854

14%

Job Description

0.141

0.168

0.838

14%

Physical
Conditions

0.131

0.118

1.108

18%

Time Pressure

0.122

0.170

0.718

12%

6.004

100%

Total

In terms of work-related responsibilities given to employee factor, gender groups

show significant difference. Men have significantly low satisfaction level about these
factors compared to women. This difference indicates that males are willing to take
80

responsibilities compared with females. Previous studies in the literature also support
our findings and states that females expectations could be lower for some factors such
as responsibilities. The analyses are verified that women perceived less supervisory
responsibility in their jobs than men do (Valentine, 2012). Females are less likely to
take responsibility for the jobs than men are.

81

82

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study, the aim is to identify the important factors for the job satisfaction of
employees in a certain public institution and to what extent this institution satisfies the
employees with respect to these prominent factors. The public institution, selected for
this study is a central governmental institution, implementing fundamental economic
policies and activities in order to contribute to the national economy and development
of the social welfare.
For this purpose, initially, main job satisfaction theories and job satisfaction factors are
investigated in the literature. After an extensive literature review, AHP Survey and
Satisfaction Survey are conducted to define the important factors for the employees of
this institution and to determine the satisfaction levels of these factors. These surveys
are covered to employees that are assistant experts and experts having BS or MS
degrees in the public institution.
In this study, 4 main factors and 25 sub factors within main factors are modelled within
a hierarchy with the help AHP technique. AHP survey is conducted on the employees
who want to participate into the study. Expert Choice 11 software program is used and
18 out of 25 sub-factors are realized as more important factors. After that, job
satisfaction survey is conducted on the employees for the determination of satisfaction
levels of these factors. SPSS software program is utilized for analysis of data
considering demographic properties.

83

According to the descriptive analysis of these factors, it is seen that general job
satisfaction level of employees is mediocre. In terms of main factors, mean values of
them shows that employees are dissatisfied with Self-Improvement, Opportunities,
and Working Conditions. However; they are satisfied with Internal Group
Dynamics.
The level of overall satisfaction and factor satisfactions are tested by using variance
analysis techniques (ANOVA & MANOVA & Non Parametric Tests) in terms of
demographic characteristics.
According to the results, males and females do not show any significant difference in
terms of general satisfaction. On the other hand, in terms of factor satisfaction, males
are more dissatisfied in taking responsibility compared with females. Managers could
try to give more responsibility to male employees. They need to be satisfied by taking
more responsibilities. Also, male employees are more dissatisfied with working in the
self-development projects. Therefore; the institution should follow self-development
programs related to the working fields and employees should be assigned to these
programs more frequently.
As far as seniority is concerned, there is a significant difference between the groups.
In addition, up to 3 years of experience employees are more satisfied with Internal
Group Dynamics than employees with over 10 years of experience. Young people
have better relationships in their departments. Another result about this study is that
workers with fewer than 10 years of experience in the institution are more satisfied with
overseas appointment and equal chance to access to opportunities. There is a
limited place for the institution to send their employees to overseas appointment. This
issue is also important for its influential power and prestige as a major public
institution. This could be improved by sending the employees for shorter time periods
for circulation of employees. In addition, equal chance to access opportunities also
has the second highest ci value among all sub-factors. Therefore, managers should try
to pay more attention to treat employees fairly, only by this way; employees could be
satisfied with the equity of chance to access to the opportunities.

84

According to sub-factor satisfaction levels, although communication and cooperation

with co-workers are the most satisfied factors among all job satisfaction determinants,
employees do not satisfied many sub-factors. They do not think that they have a chance
to choose a department in which they prefer to work. Maybe, when employees start to
work, before the assignments, employees characteristic specialties should be taken into
consideration. In addition, as a special opportunity of this institution, master degree
opportunity for a master degree at top schools of the world should be rearranged, quota
for this opportunity is tried to be increased; therefore, more people, who get top score
from the criteria put by institution, could have a chance to study master degree in
worlds famous schools. Training opportunity has the highest level of percent
dissatisfaction ratio among all factors. The results indicate that further work-related
training programs should be followed strictly by the institution and employees should
be assigned to these kinds of programs more frequently like for self-improvement
projects. Also, they think that some improvements need to be considered by the
institution for more comfortable physical conditions. Human resource departments
could take an active role in taking all necessary requirements to improve job
satisfaction factors.
It can be said that this thesis contributes to the understanding and improving of job
satisfaction factors of employees working in a major public institution. Being aware of
the needs of its employees, realizing the influences of job satisfaction factors in the
work, and developing institutional programs and policies according to necessary
improvements are the important things for public institutions. It is important to pay
attention to job satisfaction of employees, by concerning specific differences by
employee demographics such as gender, educational level, and seniority.
Consequently, significant results are obtained with this thesis. We hope that the findings
of this study will guide the future studies in this institution, and will shed a light on the
studies in other governmental and private sector institutions. Hopefully; the
recommendations of this thesis will be able to help the institution to take necessary
steps for improvement about the job satisfaction levels of the important factors.

85

5.1.

Limitations

In this study, in the classification stage where the AHP method is used, independence of
factors is taken into consideration. Main factors and sub factors in the AHP hierarchy
are assumed independent in order to compare them with each other. However, Self
Improvement factor and Opportunities factor seem to be inter-dependent and some
sub-factors within these main factors could be placed in both main factor group.
However, Self-Improvement factor is desired to be emphasized as a distinct factor
group. This can be seen as a limitation of our study. These main factors would be
clustered in single group in another study.
5.2.

Future Studies

For the future studies, the presented system with the surveys and analyses in this thesis
would be reapplied in certain periods and the necessary steps could be taken by
authorized managers and departments. If important factors and their availability are
poor for two consecutive periods, more attention should be attached specifically to
these factors. Continuous improvement could be achieved towards the job satisfaction
of employees via this way. This would enable the institution to recognize the
improvements of factors related with the job satisfaction of employees. Further analysis
might be made on the determination of other factors, affecting the job satisfaction of
employees in this institution, such as pay and job security. Also, some other
demographic factors such as age and marital status could be investigated in the future
studies.

86

REFERENCES

Albert, C., & Davia, M. A. (2005). Education, Wage and Job Satisfaction. Proposal for
the Epunet 2005 Conference
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness and Growth. New York: Macmillan
Company.
Altunta, S. (2014). Factors Affecting the Job Satisfaction Levels and Quit Intentions of
Academic
Nurses.
Nurse
Education
Today,
34(4),
513519.
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.002
Al-Zawahreh, A., & Al-Madi, F. (n.d.). The Utility of Equity Theory in Enhancing
Organizational Effectiveness. European Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Sciences. 131.
Amiri, M., Khosravi A., & Mokhtari, A. A. (2010). Job Satisfaction and Its Influential
Factors. Journal of Research in Health Science. 10(1), 42-46
Ari, M., & Sipal, R. F. (2009). Factors affecting job satisfaction of Turkish special
education professionals: predictors of turnover. European Journal of Social Work.
12(4), 447-463
Artz, B. (n.d.). Fringe Benefits and Job Satisfaction. Wisconsin.
Atasoy, T. (2004). A Comparative Study on Job Satisfaction in Large and Small Size
Enterprises. Ms. Thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Barcenas G. R., Lopez-Huertas M. J. (2013). Saatys Analytic Hierarchies Method for
Knowledge Organization in Decision Making. Journal of the American Society For
Information Science and Technology. 64(7), 14541467.
Barnet, T., & Simmering, M. (2006). Motivation and Motivation Theory. Retrieved
from
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Mar-No/Motivation-andMotivation-Theory.html. [last accessed on 12.05.14]
Basak I, Saaty T. (1993). Group Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Mathl. Compat. Modelling. 17(4/5), 101-109.

87

Baar, U. (2011). rgtsel Adalet Algs, rgtsel zdeleme ve Tatmini Arasndaki

likilere Ynelik Grgl Bir Aratrma.
Beikta, . (2009). Tatmini ve rgtsel Vatandalk Davran Arasndaki liki.
Marmara University.
Bridger, R. S., & Brasher, K. (2011). Cognitive Task Demands, Self-Control Demands
and the Mental Well-Being of Office Workers. Ergonomics, 54(9), 8309.
doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.596948
Brunetto, Y., & Warthon, R. F. (2005). The impact of NPM on the job satisfaction of a
range of Australian public sector employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
43(2), 289-304.
Chatzoglou, P. D., Vraimaki, E., & Komsiou, E. (2011). Factors Affecting
Accountants Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: A Structural Equation Model.
8th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics, (July),
130147.
Cherati, H., Mahdavi, I., & Rezaeian, J. (2013). The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction
between Spiritual Intelligence and Organizational Commitment. International Journal
of Research in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, 1(1), 1
11.
Chughati, F. D., & Perveen, U. (2013). A Study of Teachers Workload and Job
Satsfaction in Public And Private Schools At Secondary Level in Lahore City Pakistan,
2(1), 202214.
Concepts and Review of Related Literature. (n.d.). Retrieved
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4837/9/09_chapter
2.pdf
accessed on 24.02.14]

from
[last

nar, O., & Karcolu, F. (2012). The Level Of Job Satsfacton In Publc Sector: A
Survey Study In The Provnce Of Ar, Eastern Anatola, Turkey. Economics and
Management. 17(2), 712-718.
Davis, R. S. (2012). Unionization and Work Attitudes: How Union Commitment
Influences Public Sector Job Satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 74-84
De Cenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (1994). Human Resource Management: Concepts &
Practices (4th ed., pp. 325345, 409441). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eker, M., Anbar, A., Krbyk L., & Haider, N. (2007). Job Satsfacton of
Academcans in Turkey and the Factors Affectng Job Satsfacton. The Journal of
Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 9(4), 6690.
Ellickson, M., C. (2002). Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Municipal Government
Employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343358.

88

Emhan, A., Mengenci, C., Tadven, H., & Garayev, V. (2014). Yapsal Eitlik Modeli
Kullanlarak Memnuniyeti, Ynetici Destei ve Tkenmilik Kavramlar Arasndaki
likilerin Analizi: Bankaclk Sektrnde Bir Uygulama. The Journal of Social and
Economic Research, 14(27), 7596.
Eyre, E. (n.d.). Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management: Understanding Taylorism
and
Early
Management
Theory.
Retrieved
from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.htm. [last accessed on
27.03.14]
Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of the Performance of Nonparametric and Parametric
MANOVA Test Statistics when Assumptions Are Violated. Methodology: European
Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(1), 2738.
doi:10.1027/1614-1881.1.1.27
Garrin, J. (2014). The Power of Workplace Wellness: A Theoretical Model for Social
Change Agency.
Journal of Social Change, 6(1), 109117. doi:
10.5590/JOSC.2014.06.1.08.
Gereker, A. (1998). A Quantitative Approach for Analysing Motivational Factors; And
Its Application. Middle East Technical University.
Ghafoor, M. M. (2012). Role of Demographic Characteristics on Job Satisfaction. Far
East Journal of Psychology and Business. 6(1), 3045.
Graham, S., & Weiner B. (n.d.). Theories and Principles of Motivation. National
Science Motivation. 63-84.
Green, J. (2000). Job Satisfaction of Community College Chairpersons. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work : Test
of a Theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250279.
Harputlu, . (2014). Job Satisfaction and Its Relation with Perceived Workload: An
Application in a Research Institution. Middle East Technical University, Department of
Industrial Engineering.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A.
(2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride
versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 323.
Holtum, (2007). Linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction and to
motivational theories: A comparison between the public sector (nurses) and the private
sector (call centre agents). University of Maastricht.
Hong, T. T., & Waheed, A. (2011). Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory And Job
Satisfaction in the Malaysian Retail Sector: The Mediating Effect Of Love Of Money.
Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), 7394.

89

Ibrahim, M., Ahmed, S. F., Khan, N., Khan, Y., Awan, Z. M., Shadid, M. K., &
Kareem, A. (2012). Influencing Factors of Job Satisfaction in TechnicalOrganization.
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 4(3), 172179.
Javed, M., Rafig, M., Ahmed, M., & Khan, M. (2012). Impact of HR Practices on
Employee Job Satisfaction in Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. Interdisciplinary
Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(1), 348363.
Jin, M. H., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). The Effects of Autonomy, Experience, and PersonOrganization Fit on Job Satisfaction : The Case of Public Sector. The International
Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 1844.
Jones, G. R., & Geoerge, J. M. (1998). The Experience and Evolution of Trust:
Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review.
23(3),
531-546.
Retrieved
from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03637425%28199807%2923%3A3%3C531%3ATEAEO
T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X. [last accessed on 05.04.14]
Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2008). Job Satisfaction Subjective Well-Being at Work.
Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2009). Promote Job Satisfaction Through Mental
Challenge: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-based Management. In E. A.
Kaewmanorom, C. M. (2013). Consumer perceptions towards a smaller company with
a superior positive brand image, acquired by a giant company with a more negative
brand image. Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Technology
Management and Economics.
Kalayc, . (2008). SPSS Uygulamal ok Deikenli statistik Teknikleri (3rd ed.).
Ankara: Asil Yayn Datm Ltd. ti.
Khalatbari, J., Ghorbanshiroudi, S., & Firouzbakhsh, M. (2013). Correlation of Job
Stress, Job Satisfaction, Job Motivation and Burnout and Feeling Stress. Procedia Social
and
Behavioral
Sciences.
Elsevier
B.V.
Retrieved
from
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042813017369. [last accessed on
18.06.14]
Kim, S. (2005). Gender Differences in the Job Satisfaction of Public Employees: A
Study of Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), 667-681.doi:
10.1007/s11199-005-3734-6
Kim, S. (2009). IT Employee Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector. International
Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences, 1(2), 11-24.
Kumar, N., & Singh V. (2011). Job Satisfaction and Its Correlates. Social Behavior and
Personality, 39(2), 251-264.
Lee, S. Y. (2006). Expectations of Employees Toward the Workplace and
Environmental
Satisfaction.
Facilities,
24(9/10),
343353.
doi:10.1108/02632770610677628
90

Liao, H. L., Liu S. H., & Pi, S. M. (2011). Modeling Motivations For Blogging: An
Expectancy Theory Analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(2), 251-264.
Locke (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour (2nd ed., pp. 105
122). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011a). Expectancy Theory of Motivation : Motivating by Altering
Expectations, 15(1), 16.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011b). Motivating by Enriching Jobs to Make Them More
Interesting and Challenging, 15(1), 111.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational Behaviour (7th ed., pp. 113198). McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
MacMillan, C. (2012). The Effects of Physical Work Environment Satisfaction and
Shared Workspace Characteristics on Employee Behaviors Toward Their
Organization: Using Environmental Control as a Mediator. The University of Waikato.
Mahmood, A., Nudrat, S., Asdaque, M. M., Nzawaz, A., & Haider, N. (2011). Job
Satisfaction of Secondary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis of Gender, Urban
and Rural Schools. Asian Social Science, 7(8), 203208.
Ozturk, A. B., Hancer, M., & Im, J. Y. (2014). Job Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, and
Organizational Commitment for Hotel Workers in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 23(3), 294313. doi:10.1080/19368623.2013.796866
Peter D. H. (2010). Job Satisfaction and Motivation of Health Workers in Public and
Private Sectors: Cross-Sectional Analysis From Two Indian States. Human Resources
for Health, 8(27). doi:10.1186/1478-4491-8-27
Pnar, ., Kamaak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2008). Tatmini Oluturan Boyutlarn Toplam
Tatmin zerindeki Etkilerinin Dorulayc Faktr Analizi ile ncelenmesi zerine Trk
letmelerinde Bir Aratrma. Journal of the School of Business Administration, 37(2),
151166.
Retrieved
from
http://www.journals.istanbul.edu.tr/iuisletme/article/view/1023013843/1023013057.
[last accessed on 29.07.14]
Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and Work Behaviour
(7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Quinn, R. P., & Mangione, T. W. (2011). Evaluating Weighted Models of Measuring
Job Satisfaction: A Cinderella Story. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 10, 1-23.
Ramprasad, K. (2013). Motivation and Workforce Performance in Indian industries,
2(4), 2529.

91

Riley,
J.
(2012).
Theories
of
Motivation.
http://tutor2u.net/business/gcse/people_motivation_theories.htm.
15.08.14]

Retrieved
from
[last accessed on

Roelen, C. a M., Koopmans, P. C., & Groothoff, J. W. (2008). Which work factors
determine job satisfaction? Work (Reading, Mass.), 30(4), 4339.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. a. (2004). Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, 43(4), 395407. doi:10.1002/hrm.20032
Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 24(6),
19-43.
Saaty, T. L. (2002). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector
necessary. European Journal of Operational Research. Elsevier B.V. 145, 8591.
Saleem, R., Mahmood, A., & Mahmood, A. (2010). Effect of Work Motivation on Job
Satisfaction in Mobile Telecommunication Service Organizations of Pakistan.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), 213222.
Schneider, D. S., & Vaught, B. C. (1993). A Comparson Of Job Satsfacton Between
Publc And Prvate Sector Managers. PAQ Spring. 68-83.
Schmidt, S. W. (2004). The Job Training and Job Satisfaction Survey. Virginia East
Carolina University
Sedem, A. K. (2012). The Effect Of Motivaton On Retention Of Workers in the Private
Sector: A Case Study Of Zoomlon Company Ghana Ltd. Kwame Nkrumah University.
Sypniewska, B. A. (2013). Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction. Vizja
Press&IT. 5771. doi: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131.
Selladurai R. (1991). Factor Affecting Job Satisfaction - Job Performance
Relationships. American Business Review. 16-21
Smith S. (2013). Determining Sample Size: How to Ensure You Get the Correct
Sample Size, Retrived from: http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size//
[last accessed on 21.10.14]
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and
Consequences. Sage Publications, Inc.
Staples, D. S., & Higgings, C. A. (1998). A Study of The Impact of Factor Importance
Weightings On Job Satisfaction Measures. Journal of Busness and Psychology, 13(2),
211232.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Shim, Y. (2005). Measuring Satisfaction and Meaning at
Work, 111.

92

Stello, C. M. (2012). Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction: An

Integrative Literature Review. University of Minnesota.
Sun, H. . (2002). Doyumu zerine Bir Aratrma: Trkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez
Bankas Banknot Matbaas Genel Mdrl. Ankara.
Sypniewska, B. A. (2013). Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction. Vizja
Press&IT. 5771. doi: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131.
Taylor, J., & Westover, J. H. (2011). Job Satisfacton in The Public Service: The
Effects Of Public Service Motivation, Workplace Attributes And Work Relations.
Public Management Review, 13(5), 732751. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.532959.
Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction,
and Organisational Commitment of Library Personnel in Academic and Research
Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 116.
Theron, C. (2010). The Impact of Pscycological Enpowerment. Retrieved from
http://etd.uwa/bitstream/handle/11394/2622/Theron_MCOM_2010.pdf?sequence=1.
[last accessed on 27.09.14]
Tomazevic, D. N., Seljak, J., & Aristovnic, D. A. (2013). Job Satisfaction of Slovenian
Public Employees Over Tme- The Case Of Law Enforcement Officers. Metalurgia
International. 18(8), 251259.
Trivellas, P., Reklitis, P., & Platis, C. (2013). The Effect of Job Related Stress on
Employees Satisfaction: A Survey in Health Care. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 73, 718726. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.110
Ugah, A. D., & Arua U. (2011). Expectancy Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and
Cataloguing Departments. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from
http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP. [last accessed on 18.06.14]
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of
applications. European Journal of Operational Research. Elsevier B.V., 169, 129.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
Valentine, S. R. (2001). A Men and Women Supervisors' Job Responsibility, Job
Satisfaction,
and
Employee
Monitoring.
Sex
Roles,
45(3/4).
doi:
10.1023/A:1013549710711
Van Saane, N. (2003). Reliability and Validity of Instruments Measuring Job
Satisfaction-A Systematic Review. Occupational Medicine, 53(3), 179197.
doi:10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Voon, M. L., Lo GM. C., Ngui K. S., & Ayob, N. B. (2011). The influence of
leadership styles on employees job satisfaction in public sector organizations in

93

Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1),

24-32.
Worrell T. G. (2004). School Psychologists Job Satisfaction: Ten Years Later. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University
Yang, S. B., Brown G. C., & Moon, B. (2011). Factors Leading to Corrections Officers'
Job Satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 40(4), 359-369.
Yelboa, A. (2009). Bireysel Demografik Deikenlerin Doyumuna Etkisi. World
Applied
Sciences
Journal,
6(8),
10661072.
Retrieved
from
http://www.hrm.gen.tr/dosyalar/wasj_6(8).pdf. [last accessed on 26.07.14]
Yeltan, A. (2007). Effect of Coaching on Job Satisfaction. Marmara University.
Yozgatlgil, C. (2013). STAT460 Nonparametric Statistics Lecture. Ankara.
Zaim, H., Kurt, I., & Tetik, S. (2012). Casual Analysis of Employee Satisfaction and
Performance: A Feld Study In The Fnance Sector. International Journal of Business
And Management Studies, 4(2), 3142.
Jin-lou Z, Yi-fei C., & Zhao L. (2011). Risk Assessment of Offshore Engineering
Equipment Projects A Case Study of Fall Pipe Vessel in China. Management
Science and Engineering (ICMSE), 2011 International Conference, 994-1002,
doi:10.1109/icmse.2011.6070079
Zhu, Y. (2013). A Review of Job Satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 9(1), 293299.
doi:10.5539/ass.v9n1p293

94

APPENDIX A

AHP SURVEY - QUESTIONNAIRE EXPLANATION (IN TURKISH)

Deerli alanlar;
Kamu alanlarnn Tatminini Etkileyen Faktrlerin Tespit Edilmesi
ve Kamu Kurumunun Bu Faktrleri Hangi lde Karladnn Belirlenmesi
konulu tez almas kapsamnda, kamu kurumunda i tatmini zerinde etkili olan
faktrler aadaki anketle deerlendirmenize sunulmaktadr. Anket yaplrken
katlmclarn isimleri istenmeyecek ve gizlilik ilkeleri gzetilecektir.
Anket yaklak olarak 15 dakikanz alacaktr. Yapmas kolay, keyifli bir
ankettir. Sklmadan yapmanz dilerim. Anketin 24 Nisan Perembe gn akama
kadar dilediiniz zaman yapabilirsiniz.
alan memnuniyeti, kamu kurumlar iin nemli ve dikkat edilmesi gereken
bir konudur. Bu kapsamda, anketteki sorularn cevaplanmas, hem alanlarn
kendilerini etkileyen faktrleri gzden geirmeleri hem de bu faktrlere ynelik pozitif
admlarn atlmas asndan olduka nemlidir.
Tm katlmclara emekleri iin ve zaman ayrdklar iin, imdiden
teekkrlerimi sunarm.
Anketle ilgili nemli birka nokta aada yer almaktadr. Ankete balamadan
nce, anketi daha rahat yapabilmek iin aadaki aklamalar gzden geirmenizi
nemle tavsiye ederim. (Ayrca detayl aklama anketin balang ksmnda da yer
almaktadr.)
Anketi bitirebilmeniz iin btn sorular cevaplamanz gerekmektedir.
Anketi bitirdikten sonra en aadaki Gnder butonuna basarak
anketinizi tamamlayabilirsiniz. Eer, atladnz bir soru olmusa, anket
uyar verir ve sizi iaretlemediiniz soruya gtrr. Eksik braktnz
soruyu da iaretledikten sonra tekrar Gnder butonuna basarak anketi
tamamlam olacaksnz.

95

1
3
5
7
9

Ankette, ana balklara ve alt balklara ayrlm olan tm faktrler ikili

gruplar halinde karlatrmal ekilde sorulmaktadr. Gstergelerin
anlamlar aada yer almaktadr:
Eer iki faktr de sizin iin ayn neme sahipse
Eer bir faktr dierinden az da olsa daha nemli ise
Eer bir faktr dierinden daha nemli ise
Eer bir faktr dierinden ok daha nemli ise
Eer bir faktr dieri ile karlatrlamayacak kadar nemli ise
rnein, Yurtdnda yksek lisans eitimi olanann salanmas
faktr ile Yurtiindeki dil kurslarna indirimli olarak gidebilme
imkn faktr karlatrmal olarak sorulmaktadr. Sonucunda,
alanlar iin hangi faktrn daha nemli olduu tespit edilecektir.
Bahsedilen rnek karlatrma aada yer almaktadr:

Yurtdnda yksek lisans eitimi olanann salanmas faktr sizin

iin Yurtiindeki dil kurslarna indirimli olarak gidebilme imkn
faktrnden az da olsa daha nemli ise yukarda gsterildii gibi
iaretleme yapmanz gerekmektedir. Ankette, ayn ilemin btn faktr
elemeleri iin yaplmas istenmektedir.
Belirlenen faktrlerin ana ve alt balklar aadaki gibidir:
1-) Salanan mknlar: Yurtdnda yksek lisans eitimi olanann salanmas,
Atae olarak yurtdnda tayin yaplmas, yurtiindeki dil kurslarna indirimli gidebilme,
vb.
2-) alma Koullar: yknn dzenli olmas (dnemsel deikenlik
gstermemesi) , i yknn mesai saatlerinde tamamlanabilir dzeyde olmas vb.
3-) Bireysel Geliim: Yurtiinde ve yurtdnda eitim olanaklar, baarlarn
takdir edilmesi-dllendirilmesi, alann kendisini gelitirebilecei projelerde yer
almas.
4-) Departmanlar erisindeki Dinamikler: Departmandaki alma arkadalar
ile ilikilerin iyi olmas, stlerle ilikilerin iyi olmas, departman iinde i konularnda
dayanma olmas vb.

96

AHP QUESTIONNAIRE

Aada Belirtilen Faktrlerden Hangisi Tatmininiz (alma Memnuniyetiniz)

Asndan Daha nemlidir?
Salanan
imknlar

9
9

7
7

1
1

3
3

7
7

Salanan
imknlar

5
5

alma
Koullar

5
5

1
1

alma
Koullar

Salanan
imknlar

Bireysel
Geliim

Figure A.1 Template of Web Based AHP Questionnaire

97

Bireysel
Geliim
7

7
7

7
7

alma
Koullar

nsan
likileri
Bireysel
Geliim
nsan
likileri
nsan
likileri

WEB BASED AHP QUESTIONNAIRE

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire

98

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

99

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

100

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

101

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

102

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

103

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

104

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

105

Figure A.2 Web Based AHP Questionnaire (continued)

106

APPENDIX B

JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY - QUESTIONNAIRE EXPLANATION

(IN TURKISH)

Deerli alanlar;
Kamu alanlarnn Tatminini Etkileyen Faktrlerin Tespit Edilmesi
ve Kamu Kurumunun Bu Faktrleri Hangi lde Karladnn Belirlenmesi
konulu tez almas kapsamnda, nceki anket almasnda kamu kurumunda i
tatmini zerinde etkili olan faktrleri deerlendirmitiniz.
Bu aamada, ne kan faktrlerin kurumumuz tarafndan hangi lde
karlandnn tespit edilmesi iin ksa bir anket daha yaplmas gerekmektedir.
nceki ankette verdiiniz yantlar dorultusunda kan sonulara dayal olduu iin, bu
anketi de doldurmanz nem tamaktadr.
Bylece bu anket de tamamlandnda, kurumumuzda i tatmini asndan
nemli ve dikkat edilmesi gereken faktrlerin grlmesi, gzden geirilmesi ve eer
yeterli lde karlanmyor ise gerekli ve pozitif admlarn atlmasna katk
salanacaktr.
Bu anket, dieri gibi kapsaml ve uzun deildir, nceki anketin tamamlayc
niteliinde olup, yalnzca 2 dakikanz alacaktr. Anketle ilgili aklama aada yer
almaktadr.
Tm katlmclara katklarndan dolay tekrar teekkrlerimi sunarm.
Anket Aklamas: Bu ankette, nceki ankette verdiiniz cevaplar
dorultusunda kan sonular analiz edilerek, n plana kan ve en ok nemsenen
faktrler belirlenmitir. 28 adet alt faktrn ierisinde 18 adedinin n plana kt ve
kurumumuz alanlar tarafndan olduka nemsendii tespit edilmitir.
ne kan Faktrler in, 1den 5e kadar derecenin yer ald ankette, nem
derecesine gre karlatrlmas istenmektedir. Gstergelerin anlamlar aada yer
almaktadr:
1 Kesinlikle katlmyorum
2 Katlmyorum
3 Fikrim yok
4 Katlyorum
5 Kesinlikle katlyorum
107

rnein, Yurtdnda yksek lisans eitimi olanann salanmas faktrnn

sizce kurum tarafndan yeterli lde karlanmakta olup olmad sorulmaktadr.
Yurtdnda yksek lisans eitimi olanann salanmas faktrnn kurum tarafndan
karlanmasnn yeterli lde olduuna katlyorsanz aadaki rnekteki gibi 4
numaral kutuyu iaretlemeniz gerekmektedir.

JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Table B.1 Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
1
I feel that I can get the opportunity of overseas appointment
I feel that I can get the opportunity of going the top universities of the world for
master degree
I feel that I can work in my preferred department.
I am satisfied with participating in international and national meetings.
I feel satisfied with training opportunities in Turkey or abroad such as certificate
programs
I feel that I can work in the projects that develop my capabilities and skills
I feel the rewards and appreciations are obtained, resulting from performing well.
I feel that I have a chance to access to opportunities in the department.
I feel that workload is equally distributed by managers among employees in the
department.
I am satisfied with style of supervisor (such as autocratic or democratic).
I am satisfied with cooperation between colleagues in the department.
I am satisfied with good relationships with colleagues in the department.
I feel that I workload that could be completed in working hours
I am satisfied with having work-related responsibilities.
I feel that the tasks are important for the institution.
I am not satisfied with physical conditions.
I work in such tasks to do in a certain time, so I feel time pressure.
I feel my job description is clear.

108

Figure B.1 Web Based Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

109

Figure B.1 Web Based Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (continued)

110

Figure B.1 Web Based Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (continued)

111

112

APPENDIX C

NORMALITY TESTS FOR SUB FACTORS

Table C.1 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Gender Groups

a

Shapiro-Wilk

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Comparison Factor

Gender
Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Male

.214

41

.000

.903

41

.002

Female

.239

29

.000

.892

29

.006

.200

41

.000

.871

41

.000

.171

29

.030

.909

29

.016

Male

.249

41

.000

.822

41

.000

Female

.208

29

.003

.878

29

.003

I feel that I can work in my Male

preferred department.
Female

.211

41

.000

.889

41

.001

.229

29

.000

.905

29

.013

I feel satisfied with training

opportunities in Turkey or
abroad such as certificate
programs.

Male

.181

41

.002

.859

41

.000

Female

.206

29

.003

.853

29

.001

I feel that I can work in the Male

projects that develop my
capabilities and skills.
Female

.277

41

.000

.815

41

.000

.234

29

.000

.903

29

.012

I feel the rewards and

Male
appreciations are obtained,
resulting from performing
Female
well.

.223

41

.000

.875

41

.000

.272

29

.000

.863

29

.001

I feel that I have a chance

Male
to access to opportunities in
the department.
Female

.245

41

.000

.871

41

.000

.190

29

.009

.862

29

.001

I feel that workload is

Male
equally distributed by
managers among employees
in the department.
Female

.187

41

.001

.852

41

.000

.293

29

.000

.851

29

.001

I am satisfied with style of

supervisor (such as
autocratic or democratic).

Male

.177

41

.002

.916

41

.005

Female

.247

29

.000

.889

29

.005

I feel that I can get the

opportunity of overseas
appointment.

I feel that I can get the

Male
opportunity of going the top
universities of the world for
Female
master degree.
I feel that I can work in my
preferred department.

113

Table C.1 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Gender Groups (continued)
Comparison Factor

Gender

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Male

.273

41

.000

.856

41

.000

Female

.323

29

.000

.784

29

.000

I am satisfied with good

Male
relationships with colleagues
in the department.
Female

.282

41

.000

.761

41

.000

.281

29

.000

.781

29

.000

I am satisfied with
cooperation between
colleagues in the
department.

I feel that we have regular

workload in a day.

Male

.152

41

.018

.880

41

.000

Female

.230

29

.000

.858

29

.001

I am satisfied with having

work-related
responsibilities.

Male

.198

41

.000

.914

41

.005

Female

.249

29

.000

.891

29

.006

Male
I feel that the tasks are
important for the institution.
Female

.244

41

.000

.879

41

.000

.187

29

.011

.919

29

.030

I am satisfied with physical Male

conditions.
Female

.292

41

.000

.785

41

.000

.294

29

.000

.766

29

.000

I work in such tasks to do

in a certain time, so I feel
time pressure.

Male

.246

41

.000

.887

41

.001

Female

.254

29

.000

.870

29

.002

I feel my job description is Male

clear.
Female

.174

41

.003

.888

41

.001

.217

29

.001

.888

29

.005

114

Table C.2 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Educational Level Groups
a

Shapiro-Wilk

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Comparison Factor

Educational Level
Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

Undergraduate

.238

41

.000

.855

41

.000

Graduate

.156

29

.069

.920

29

.030

.218

41

.000

.885

41

.001

.177

29

.021

.885

29

.004

Undergraduate

.202

41

.000

.855

41

.000

Graduate

.207

29

.003

.860

29

.001

Undergraduate

.187

41

.001

.870

41

.000

Graduate

.280

29

.000

.877

29

.003

Undergraduate

.176

41

.003

.866

41

.000

Graduate

.213

29

.002

.846

29

.001

.233

41

.000

.829

41

.000

.182

29

.015

.902

29

.011

.230

41

.000

.880

41

.000

.190

29

.009

.878

29

.003

I feel that I have a chance Undergraduate

to access to opportunities in
the department.
Graduate

.193

41

.001

.905

41

.002

.242

29

.000

.821

29

.000

I feel that workload is

Undergraduate
equally distributed by
managers among employees
Graduate
in the department.

.210

41

.000

.885

41

.001

.265

29

.000

.863

29

.001

I am satisfied with style of

supervisor (such as
autocratic or democratic).

Undergraduate

.208

41

.000

.900

41

.002

Graduate

.219

29

.001

.888

29

.005

Undergraduate

.267

41

.000

.842

41

.000

Graduate

.352

29

.000

.773

29

.000

.265

41

.000

.783

41

.000

.302

29

.000

.760

29

.000

I feel that I can get the

opportunity of overseas
appointment.

I feel that I can get the

Undergraduate
opportunity of going the top
universities of the world for
Graduate
master degree.
I feel that I can work in my
preferred department.

I feel that I can work in my

preferred department.
I feel satisfied with training
opportunities in Turkey or
abroad such as certificate
programs.

I feel that I can work in the Undergraduate

projects that develop my
capabilities and skills.
Graduate
I feel the rewards and
Undergraduate
appreciations are obtained,
resulting from performing
Graduate
well.

I am satisfied with
cooperation between
colleagues in the
department.

I am satisfied with good

Undergraduate
relationships with colleagues
in the department.
Graduate

115

Table C.2 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Educational Level Groups
(continued)
Comparison Factor

Educational Level

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

I feel that we have regular

workload in a day.

Undergraduate

.194

41

.000

.879

41

.000

Graduate

.173

29

.027

.876

29

.003

I am satisfied with having

work-related
responsibilities.

Undergraduate

.182

41

.002

.917

41

.005

Graduate

.224

29

.001

.901

29

.010

Undergraduate
I feel that the tasks are
important for the institution. Graduate

.252

41

.000

.820

41

.000

.176

29

.022

.909

29

.016

I am satisfied with physical Undergraduate

conditions.
Graduate

.283

41

.000

.798

41

.000

.308

29

.000

.723

29

.000

I work in such tasks to do Undergraduate

in a certain time, so I feel
Graduate
time pressure.

.237

41

.000

.874

41

.000

.269

29

.000

.881

29

.004

I feel my job description is Undergraduate

clear.
Graduate

.185

41

.001

.904

41

.002

.201

29

.004

.909

29

.017

116

Table C.3 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Seniority Groups

Comparison Factor

Seniority

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

0-3 Years

.229

37

.000

.871

37

.000

Over 10 Years

.260

13

.016

.883

13

.078

3-10 Years

.232

20

.006

.887

20

.024

I feel that I can get the

0-3 Years
opportunity of going the top
Over 10 Years
universities of the world for
3-10 Years
master degree

.247

37

.000

.836

37

.000

.314

13

.001

.851

13

.030

.235

20

.005

.880

20

.018

0-3 Years
I feel that I can work in my
Over 10 Years
preferred department.
3-10 Years

.197

37

.001

.855

37

.000

.229

13

.061

.886

13

.087

.216

20

.015

.842

20

.004

0-3 Years
I am satisfied with
participating in international Over 10 Years
and national meetings.
3-10 Years

.235

37

.000

.867

37

.000

.184

13

.200*

.896

13

.116

.212

20

.019

.894

20

.032

I feel satisfied with training 0-3 Years

opportunities in Turkey or
Over 10 Years
abroad such as certificate
3-10 Years
programs

.212

37

.000

.850

37

.000

.307

13

.001

.856

13

.035

.188

20

.061

.848

20

.005

0-3 Years
I feel that I can work in the
projects that develop my
Over 10 Years
capabilities and skills
3-10 Years

.206

37

.000

.867

37

.000

.235

13

.048

.851

13

.029

.228

20

.008

.840

20

.004

I feel the rewards and

appreciations are obtained,
resulting from performing
well.

0-3 Years

.207

37

.000

.883

37

.001

Over 10 Years

.281

13

.006

.811

13

.009

3-10 Years

.216

20

.015

.880

20

.018

0-3 Years
I feel that I have a chance
to access to opportunities in Over 10 Years
the department.
3-10 Years

.216

37

.000

.885

37

.001

.281

13

.006

.811

13

.009

.245

20

.003

.864

20

.009

I feel that workload is

0-3 Years
equally distributed by
Over 10 Years
managers among employees
3-10 Years
in the department.

.251

37

.000

.887

37

.001

.246

13

.031

.841

13

.022

.292

20

.000

.761

20

.000

0-3 Years

.212

37

.000

.906

37

.004

Over 10 Years

.268

13

.011

.847

13

.026

3-10 Years

.314

20

.000

.835

20

.003

I feel that I can get the

opportunity of overseas
appointment.

I am satisfied with style of

supervisor (such as
autocratic or democratic).

117

Table C.3 Test of Normality for Sub Factors in Seniority Groups (continued)
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Comparison Factor

Shapiro-Wilk

Seniority
Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

0-3 Years

.299

37

.000

.802

37

.000

Over 10 Years

.195

13

.190

.931

13

.353

3-10 Years

.333

20

.000

.768

20

.000

.273

37

.000

.784

37

.000

.295

13

.003

.736

13

.001

.309

20

.000

.762

20

.000

0-3 Years

.184

37

.003

.874

37

.001

Over 10 Years

.203

13

.146

.886

13

.087

3-10 Years

.232

20

.006

.858

20

.007

0-3 Years
I am satisfied with having
Over 10 Years
work-related responsibilities.
3-10 Years

.209

37

.000

.915

37

.008

.250

13

.026

.864

13

.043

.256

20

.001

.866

20

.010

0-3 Years
I feel that the tasks are
Over 10 Years
important for the institution.
3-10 Years

.260

37

.000

.855

37

.000

.232

13

.054

.918

13

.238

.191

20

.055

.920

20

.100

0-3 Years

.296

37

.000

.793

37

.000

Over 10 Years

.254

13

.021

.815

13

.010

3-10 Years

.308

20

.000

.691

20

.000

.264

37

.000

.867

37

.000

.181

13

.200

.938

13

.436

.342

20

.000

.828

20

.002

0-3 Years

.189

37

.002

.887

37

.001

Over 10 Years

.166

13

.200*

.938

13

.437

3-10 Years

.203

20

.030

.896

20

.035

I am satisfied with
cooperation between
colleagues in the
department.

0-3 Years
I am satisfied with good
relationships with colleagues Over 10 Years
in the department
3-10 Years
I feel that we have regular
workload

I am not satisfied with

physical conditions.

0-3 Years
I work in such tasks to do in
a certain time, so I feel time Over 10 Years
pressure.
3-10 Years
I feel my job description is
clear.

118

APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF NON-PARAMETRIC TEST FOR GROUPS OF INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES IN TERMS SUB-FACTORS

Table D.1 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Gender in Terms of Sub-Factors

119

Table D.1 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Gender in Terms of Sub-Factors

(continued)

120

Table D.2 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Educational Level in Terms of SubFactors

121

Table D.2 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Educational Level in Terms of SubFactors (continued)

122

Table D.3 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Seniority in Terms of Sub-Factors

123

Table D.3 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Seniority in Terms of Sub-Factors

(continued)

124

APPENDIX E

RESULTS OF NON-PARAMETRIC TEST FOR GROUPS OF INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES IN MAIN FACTORS

Table E.1 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Gender in Terms of Main Factors

Table E.2 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Educational Level in Terms of Main
Factors

Table E.3 Results of Non-Parametric Test for Seniority in Terms of Main Factors

125

126

APPENDIX F

PERCENT DISSATISFACTION RATIO

Tables related with dissatisfaction ratios of sub-factors are represented in the following pages.

127

Table F.1 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of Sub-Factors

Importance (vi)
AHP
Normalized
Results
Results
Opportunities
Overseas
appointment
0.29
0.338

Availability (ui)
SPSS
Normalized
Results
Results
Opportunities
Overseas
appointment
2.94
0.266

Dissatisfaction Ratio (vi/ui)

Normalized
Results
Results
Opportunities
Overseas
appointment
1.27
0.320

Opportunities
Overseas
appointment

Master degree

0.275

Master degree

0.284

Master degree

0.244

Master degree

24%

2.43

0.220

1.01

0.256

0.230

0.71

0.180

Prefered Dept.
Int. & Nat.
Meetings

26%

2.54

Preferred Dept.
Int. & Nat.
Meetings

11.05

1.000

Total

3.97

1.000

Total

100%

0.23

Preferred Dept.
Int. & Nat.
Meetings

0.19

0.223

0.14

0.164

Preferred Dept.
Int. & Nat.
Meetings

Total

0.85

1.000

Total

3.14

0.97

Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio (ci)

Ratio
32%

18%

128

Importance (vi)
AHP
Normalized
Working
Results
Results
Conditions
Working hours
0.21
0.237
Responsibilities
0.20
0.216
Task importance
0.14
0.154

Availability (ui)
SPSS
Normalized
Working
Results
Results
Conditions
Working hours
3.24
0.190
Responsibilities
2.97
0.174
Task importance
3.07
0.180

Dissatisfaction Ratio (vi/ui)

Normalized
Working
Results
Results
Conditions
Working hours
1.25
0.208

Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio (ci)

Working
Ratio
Conditions
Working hours
21%

Responsibilities

0.206

Responsibilities

21%

0.142

Task importance

14%

Job description
Physical
conditions
Time pressure

0.13

0.141

2.86

0.168

0.140

2.01

0.118

1.11

0.185

0.11

0.122

2.89

0.170

0.72

0.120

Job description
Physical
conditions
Time pressure

14%

0.131

Job description
Physical
conditions
Time pressure

0.84

0.12

Job description
Physical
conditions
Time pressure

Total

0.90

1.000

Total

17.04

1.000

Total

6.00

1.000

Total

100%

Task importance

1.24
0.85

18%
12%

Table F.1 Percent Dissatisfaction Ratio of Sub-Factors (continued)

Importance (vi)
AHP
SelfResults
Improvement
Training
0.53

0.27

0.267

Rewards&
appreciations

0.20

0.201

Availability (ui)
SPSS
Normalized
SelfResults
Results
Improvement
Training
2.74
0.370
Selfdevelopment
projects
2.27
0.307
Rewards&
appreciations
2.39
0.323

Total

1.00

1.000

Total

Self-development
projects

Normalized
Results
0.531

129

Importance (vi)
Internal Group
Dynamics
Equal access to
opt.
Equal workload
Style of
Supervisors
Cooperation
Communication
btw. co-workers
Total

7.40

1.000

Dissatisfaction Ratio (vi/ui)

Normalized
SelfResults
Results
Improvement
Training
1.43
0.490
Selfdevelopment
projects
0.87
0.297
Rewards&
appreciations
0.62
0.213

Availability (ui)

AHP
Results

Normalized
Results

0.31

0.347

0.17

0.190

0.16

0.179

0.15

0.164

0.11

0.120

Internal Group
Dynamics
Equal access to
opt.
Equal workload
Style of
Supervisors
Cooperation
Communication
btw. co-workers

0.90

1.000

Total

2.93

Total

1.000

Dissatisfaction Ratio (vi/ui)

SPSS
Results

Normalized
Results

2.61

0.159

2.51

0.153

3.23

0.197

3.89

0.237

4.19

0.255

Internal Group
Dynamics
Equal access to
opt.
Equal workload
Style of
Supervisors
Cooperation
Communication
btw. co-workers

16.43

1.000

Total

Results

Normalized
Results

2.19

0.398

1.24

0.226

0.91

0.165

0.69

0.126

0.47
5.50

Percent Dissatisfaction
Ratio (ci)
SelfRatio
Improvement
Training
49%
Selfdevelopment
projects
30%
Rewards&
appreciations
21%
100%
Total
Percent Dissatisfaction
Ratio (ci)
Ratio

0.085

Internal Group
Dynamics
Equal access to
opt.
Equal workload
Style of
Supervisors
Cooperation
Communication
btw. co-workers

1.000

Total

100%

40%
23%
17%
13%
9%