Job Statisfaction

JOB SATISFACTION OF ACADEMICS IN
MALAYSIAN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Submitted by
Khairunneezam Mohd Noor
BSc. (HRD),MSc. (HRD)
A thesis submitted in total fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
La Trobe Business School

Faculty of Business, Economics and Law
La Trobe University
Bundoora, Victoria 3086
Australia
March 2013
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents ....ii
List of figures ....xiii
List of tables ..xiv
Glossary ...xx
List of appendices xxi
Thesis summary ..xxii
Statement of Authorship ..xxiii
Acknowledgements .......xxiv
ii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement and Significance of the Study 3
1.3 A Brief History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7
1.3.1 History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7

1.3.1.1 Public Higher Educational Institutions 7
1.3.1.2 Private Higher Educational Institutions 8
1.3.1.3 Reforms in the Malaysian Higher Education Sector 9
1.3.1.4 Rating System for Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia 12
1.3.2 The Global Context of Higher Education 13

1.3.2.1 Expansion of Roles of Higher Educational Sector 14
1.3.2.2 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector 15
1.3.2.3 Quality of Higher Educational Sector 17
1.4 Research Aims 18
1.5 Structure of the Thesis 18
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 20
2.2 Drivers and Challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia 22
2.2.1 Key Issues and Challenges in the Malaysian Higher Educational Sector 22
2.2.1.1 Expansion of Malaysian Higher Educational Sector 22
2.2.1.2 Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector 23
2.2.1.3 Corporatisation and Privatisation of Higher Education Institutions 25
2.2.1.4 Improving the Quality of Higher Educational Sector 27
2.2.1.5 Governments Support for Higher Educational Sector 28
2.2.1.6 Human Capital Development via Higher Educational Sector 29
2.2.1.7 University-Industry Collaboration 30
2.2.1.8 Cultivating Research and Development in Higher Education 30
2.2.2 Summary for Drivers and Challenges of Malaysian Higher Education 32
iii
2.3 Literature Reviews of Job Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction Theories 33
2.3.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction 33

2.3.2 Contemporary Theories of Job Satisfaction 35
2.3.2.1 Content Theories 36
2.3.2.2 Process Theories 40
2.3.3 The Implication of Job Satisfaction Theories on the Theoretical Framework of the
Study 44
2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 45

2.4.1 Organisational Factors 46
2.4.2 Demographic Characteristics 53
2.4.3 Work-Life Balance 56
2.4.4 Summary for the Literature of the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 60
2.5 Consequence of Job Satisfaction: Intention to Leave 61
2.6 Conceptual Framework for the Study 63
2.7 Summary of Research Questions 65
2.8 Conclusion 67
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 68
3.2 Research Paradigm and Design 70
3.3 Mixed Methods Research Design Model 74

3.3.1 Stage 1: Purpose of the Study 75
3.3.2 Stage 2: Conceptual Framework 75
3.3.3 Stage 3: Research Questions 76
3.3.4 Stage 4: Methods 78
3.3.4.1 Ethical Considerations 80
3.3.4.2 Qualitative Study 80
3.3.4.3 Quantitative Study 82
3.3.5 Stage 5: Validity and Trustworthiness 89
3.3.5.1 Validity in Qualitative Methods 89
3.3.5.2 Validity in Quantitative Methods 90
iv
3.4 Data Analysis 90
3.4.1 Qualitative Data Analysis 90
3.4.2 Quantitative Data Analysis 91
3.4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis 91
3.4.2.2 Mediation and Moderation Analysis 93
3.5 Background of the Qualitative Study 99
3.6 Background of the Quantitative Study: Demographic Summary 108
3.7 Findings of Normality Tests of Variables in Quantitative Study 111
3.8 Measures of Reliability 112
3.9 Non-response Bias Analysis and Common Method Variance in the Quantitative
Study 113
3.10 Conclusion 116
Chapter 4: SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITIES

POLICIES AND SUPPORT
4.1 Introduction 117
4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with GUPS 118

4.2.1 Satisfied Respondents 119
4.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 121
4.3 Qualitative Study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Satisfaction with GUPS 122
4.3.1 Funds for research and development activities 124
4.3.2 Support for academics to further their studies 126
4.3.3 Policy on university-industry partnership 127
4.3.4 Internationalisation of public universities 130
4.3.5 Expansion of Issues of GUPS in the Qualitative Study into the Quantitative
Study 133
4.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS 133

4.4.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with GUPS 134
4.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS by Gender 137
4.4.3 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age 138
4.4.4 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Tenure 140
4.4.5 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Management
Position 141
v
4.5 Conclusion 142
Chapter 5: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION: PAY,

PROMOTION, SUPERVISION, FRINGE BENEFITS AND CONTINGENT
REWARDS
5.2 Pay Satisfaction 150

5.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Pay 150
5.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents 151
5.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents 152
5.2.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Pay 154
5.2.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Pay 154
5.2.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender 157
5.2.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Age 158
5.2.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Tenure 159
5.2.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management
Position 160
5.2.3 Summary of Key Findings on Pay Satisfaction 161
5.3 Satisfaction with Promotion 163

5.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Promotion 163
5.3.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Promotion 167
5.3.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Promotion 167
5.3.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Gender 169
5.3.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Age 170
5.3.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Tenure 171
5.3.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Management
Position 172
5.3.3 Summary of Key Findings on Promotion Satisfaction 173
5.4 Supervision Satisfaction 175

5.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Supervision 175
5.4.2 Qualitative study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Supervision 177
5.4.2.1 Fairness and consideration 179
5.4.2.2 Management strategy and leadership 179
5.4.2.3 Consultation and freedom 181
5.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Supervision Satisfaction 184
5.4.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Supervision 184
5.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Gender 186
5.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Age 187
vi
5.4.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Tenure 188
5.4.3.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Management
Position 190
5.4.4 Summary of Key Findings on Supervision Satisfaction 191
5.5 Fringe Benefits 192

5.5.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 192
5.5.2 Quantitative study Findings on Fringe Benefits Satisfaction 195
5.5.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 196
5.5.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by
Gender 198
5.5.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age 198
Tenure 199
Management Position 200
5.5.3 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 201
5.6 Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 202

5.6.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards 202
5.6.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issue on Recognitions 203
5.6.3 Quantitative study Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 204
5.6.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards 204
5.6.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among Academics by
Gender 206
Age 206
Tenure 208
5.6.4 Summary of Key Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 210
5.7 Conclusion 211
Chapter 6: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

OPERATING CONDITIONS, CO-WORKERS, NATURE OF WORK AND
COMMUNICATION

6.2 Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 217
6.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 217
vii
6.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents 218
6.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents 218
6.2.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Operating
Conditions 219
6.2.2.1 Facilities at the workplace 221
6.2.2.2 Uninterrupted Working Conditions 222
6.2.2.3 Work responsibilities 223
6.2.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction 225
6.2.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Operating Conditions 225
6.2.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among Academics by
Gender 227
Age 228
Tenure 229
6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction 231
6.3 Satisfaction with Co-Workers 232

6.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Co-Workers 233
6.3.1.1 Satisfied Respondents 234
6.3.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 234
6.3.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Pertaining to Co-Workers 234
6.3.2.1 Cooperation among colleagues 237
6.3.2.2 Nature of constructive competition among colleagues 238
6.3.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction 239
6.3.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Co-Workers 240
6.3.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by
Gender 242
6.3.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Age 242
Tenure 244
6.3.4 Summary of Key Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction 245
6.4 Satisfaction with Nature of Work 247

6.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Nature of Work 247
6.4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Regarding to Nature of Work
Satisfaction 249
6.4.2.1 The job itself 251
6.4.2.2 Students factor 251
6.4.2.3 The Nature of Teaching and Research 252
viii
6.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Nature of Work Satisfaction 254
6.4.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Nature of Work 254
6.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Nature of Work among Academics by
Gender 256
6.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Nature of Work among Academics by Age 256
Tenure 258
6.4.4 Summary of Key Findings of Nature of Work Satisfaction 260
6.5 Communication 261

6.5.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Communication 261
6.5.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Related to Communication
Satisfaction 262
6.5.2.1 Flow of Communication 265
6.5.2.2Interpretation of communication between academics and administration
Staff 265
6.5.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Communication Satisfaction 266
6.5.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Communication 267
6.5.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by
Gender 268
6.5.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by Age 269
Tenure 270
6.5.4 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Communication 272
6.6 Conclusion 273
Chapter 7: SATISFACTION WITH WORK-LIFE BALANCE
7.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 279
7.2.1 Satisfied Respondents 281
7.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents 282
7. 3 Qualitative study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Work-Life Balance 283

7.3.1 Working overtime and on weekends 286
7.3.2 Family support 286
7.3.3 Impacts of work towards life or vice versa 287
ix
7.3.4 Expansion of Issues of Work-life Balance Satisfaction in the Qualitative
Study into the Quantitative study 289
7.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 290

7.4.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 290
7.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics by
Gender 293
Age 294
Tenure 296
7.5 Conclusion 297
Chapter 8: DESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS IN THE ONLINE

SURVEY
8.2 Level of Overall Job Satisfaction of Academics in Malaysian

Higher Education Institutions 303
8.2.1Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender 305
8.2.2 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age 306
8.2.3 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Tenure 308
8.2.4 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Management
Position 308
8.3 Level of Intention to Leave of Academics in Malaysian Higher Education

Institutions 309
8.3.1 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender 311
8.3.2 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Age 311
8.3.3 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Tenure 312
8.3.4 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Management
Position 313
8.4 Correlations Findings 313

8.4.1 The relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and
overall job satisfaction 341
intention to leave 341
8.4.3 The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave 342
x
8.5 Mediation Analysis 342
8.5.1 Hypothesis 8(a) 343
8.5.2 Hypothesis 8(b) 344
8.5.3 Hypothesis 8(c) 344
8.5.4 Hypothesis 8(d) 345
8.5.5 Hypothesis 8(e) 346
8.5.6 Hypothesis 8(f) 347
8.5.7 Hypothesis 8(g) 348
8.5.8 Hypothesis 8(h) 348
8.5.9 Hypothesis 8(i) 349
8.5.10 Hypothesis 8(j) 350
8.5.11 Hypothesis 8(k) 351
8.5.12 Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings 352
8.6 Moderation Analysis 353

8.6.1 The Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction
and Intention to Leave 355
8.6.2 The Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction
8.6.3 The Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction
8.6.4 The Moderator Effect of Management Position on the Relationship between
Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave 359
8.6.5 Summary of the Moderation Analysis Findings 360
8.7 Conclusion 361
Chapter 9: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.2 Summary of the Current Study and Research Aims 367
9.3 Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research Methodology 369
9.4 Findings and Conclusions 372

9.4.1 Key Findings: satisfaction with GUPS, Organisational Antecedents, and Work-
Life Balance 377
9.4.2 Key Findings: Satisfaction Based on Demographic Differences 382
9.4.3 Key Findings: Level of Intention to Leave the Organisation 387
9.4.4 Key Findings: he Relationship between the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction,
Overall Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Leave 388
xi
9.4.5 Key Findings: Mediation and Moderation Roles 390
9.5 Implications, Limitations & Recommendations 390

9.5.1 Contributions to Knowledge 390
9.5.2 Implications for Methodology 395
9.5.3 Implications for the University and Policy Makers 396
9.5.4 Limitation of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research 398
9.6 Conclusion 400
Appendix A: Ethics Approval Letters 402
Appendix B: Interview Schedule 405
Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted from the Thesis 409
Bibliography 410
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Organisation of Chapter 1 3

Figure 2.2: Herzbergs continuum of satisfiers-dissatisfiers 39
Figure 2.3: Conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory 42
Figure 2.4: Conditions of Equity and Inequity 44
Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for the Study 64
Figure 3.2: The research design model 74
Figure 3.3: Visual model for mixed-methods sequential design procedures 79
Figure 3.4: The Mediation Model 94
Figure 3.5: Model of Moderation 98
Figure 8.2: Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings 353
Figure 8.3: Interaction of Age and Overall Job Satisfaction in Predicting
Intention to Leave 358
Figure 9.2: Conceptual Framework of the Study 370
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions
(SETARA11) 13
Table 2.1: Herzbergs Hygiene and Motivator Factors 39
Table 2.2: Organisational Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 48
Table 3.1: Dimensions and contrasts of the three perspectives of research
methods 73
Table 3.2: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study 77
Table 3.3: Instruments used in the quantitative study 86
Table 3.4: Guildfords Rule of Thumb 93
Table 3.5: Demographic Characteristics of the Interviewees 101
Table 3.6: Interviewees position in the organisation and gender 102
Table 3.7: Dimensions of satisfaction of interviewed key persons and focus
groups in the qualitative study 104
Table 3.8: Segregation of respondents based on each university 108
Table 3.9: Frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of
respondents (n=1078) 109
Table 3.10: Measures of reliability for all scales 112
Table 3.11: The Waves of Participations Invitations and Cumulative Responses 115
Table 4.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with GUPS 119
Table 4.2: Academics satisfaction with government and university policies in
the qualitative study 123
Table 4.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on
Satisfaction with GUPS 135
Table 4.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by
Gender 138
Table 4.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with GUPS among
Academics by Age 138
Table 4.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by
Age 139
Academics by Tenure 140
Table 4.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with GUPS 148
Table 5.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with pay 151
Table 5.2: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Pay
Satisfaction 155
Table 5.3: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender 157
Table 5.4: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Pay among
xiv
Table 5.5: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Age 158
Table 5.7: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Tenure 160
Table 5.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by
Table 5.9: Interview respondents general satisfaction with promotion 164
Table 5.10: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on
Promotion Satisfaction 168
Table 5.11: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by
Gender 169
Table 5.12: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion
among Academics by Age 170
Table 5.13: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Age 171
Table 5.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion
among Academics by Tenure 171
Table 5.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Tenure 172
Table 5.17: Interview respondents general satisfaction with supervision 175
Table 5.18: Issues on academics satisfaction with supervision in the qualitative
study 178
Table 5.19: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on
Supervision Satisfaction 185
Table 5.20: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by 187
Gender
Table 5.21: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision
Table 5.22: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Age 188
Table 5.23: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision
Table 5.24: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Tenure 189
Table 5.25: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by
Table 5.26: Interview respondents general satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 193
Table 5.27: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Fringe
Benefits Satisfaction 196
Table 5.28: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among
Academics by Gender 198
Table 5.29: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits
Table 5.30: Post-Hoc Analysis for Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age 199
xv
Table 5.32: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among
Academics by Management Position 200
Table 5.33: Interview respondents general satisfaction with Contingent
Rewards 202
Table 5.34: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on 205
Contingent Rewards Satisfaction
Table 5.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among 206
Academics by Gender
Table 5.36: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent 207
Rewards among Academics by Age
Table 5.37: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by 207
Age
Table 5.38: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent 208
Rewards among Academics by Tenure
Table 5.39: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by 208
Tenure
Table 5.40: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among 209
Academics by Management Position
Table 5.41: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational 212
Antecedents of Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits and Contingent
Rewards
Table 6.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with operating conditions 217
Table 6.2: Issues on academics satisfaction with operating conditions in the 220
qualitative study
Table 6.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on 226
Operating Conditions Satisfaction
Table 6.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among 227
Academics by Gender
Table 6.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating 228
Conditions among Academics by Age
Table 6.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics 228
by Age
Table 6.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating 229
Conditions among Academics by Tenure
Table 6.8: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics by 230
Tenure
Table 6.9: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among 231
Table 6.10: Interview respondents general satisfaction with co-workers 233
Table 6.11: Issues on academics satisfaction with co-workers in the qualitative 236
study
xvi
Table 6.12: Frequencies and Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on
Co-Workers Satisfaction 240
Table 6.13: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics 242
by Gender
Table 6.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers 243
among Academics by Age
Table 6.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Co-Workers among Academics by Age 243
Table 6.16: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers 244
among Academics by Tenure
Table 6.17: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics 245
by Management Position
Table 6.18: Interview respondents general satisfaction with nature of work 248
Table 6.19: Issues on academics satisfaction with nature of work in the 250
qualitative study
Table 6.20: Frequencies and Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on 255
Nature of Work Satisfaction
Table 6.21: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Nature of Work among 256
Academics by Gender
Table 6.22: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Nature of 257
Work among Academics by Age
Table 6.23: Post-Hoc Analysis for Nature of Work among Academics 257
by Age
Table 6.24: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Nature of 258
Work among Academics by Tenure
Table 6.25: Post-Hoc Analysis for Nature of Work among Academics 258
by Tenure
Table 6.26: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Nature of Work among 259
Table 6.27: General Satisfaction with Communication 262
Table 6.28: Issues on academics satisfaction with communication in the
qualitative study 264
Satisfaction with Communication 267
Table 6.30: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among
Table 6.31: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with
Communication among Academics by Age 269
Table 6.32: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Communication among
Table 6.33: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction Communication
xvii
Table 6.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among
Table 6.36: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational
Antecedents of operating Conditions, Co-Workers, Nature of Work and
Communication 275
Table 7.1: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 280
Table 7.2: Issues on academics satisfaction with work-life balance in the
qualitative study 285
Table 7.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on
Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 291
Table 7.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among
Table 7.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life
Balance among Academics by Age 294
Table 7.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
Table 7.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life
Balance among Academics by Tenure 296
Table 7.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among
Table 7.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 298
Table 8.1: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Overall 304
Satisfaction
Table 8.2: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by 306
Gender
Table 8.3: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Overall Job Satisfaction among 307
Academics by Age
Table 8.4: Post-Hoc Analysis for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by 307
Age
Table 8.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Overall Job Satisfaction among 308
Academics by Tenure
Table 8.6: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by 309
Management Position
Table 8.7: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean of Intention to Leave 310
Table 8.8: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender 311
Table 8.9: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among
Table 8.10: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among
Table 8.11: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by
Table 8.12: Bivariate Correlations between All Variables of the Study 314
xviii
Table 8.13: Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Intention to Leave 355
Table 8.14: Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job
Table 8.15:Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job
Table 8.16: Moderator Effect of Holding Management Position on the
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave 360
Table 9.1: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study 371
Table 9.2: Summary for the Current Studys Findings 373
xix
Glossary
ANOVA Analysis of Variance

FHEC The Faculty Human Ethics Committee
FFPs Family-friendly Policies
GUPS Government and Universities Policies and Support
IRPA Intensive research in Priority Area
JSS Job Satisfaction Survey
MIMOS The Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic System
MOSTI The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
R&D Research and Development
RM Ringgit Malaysia
RU Research University
SETARA The Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
UM University of Malaya
UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia
USM Universiti Sains Malaysia
WLP Work-Life Policy
xx
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Ethics Approval Letters

Appendix B: Interview Schedule
Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted from the Thesis
xxi
Summary
This study aims to explore the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and
consequence of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher education
institutions. A theoretical framework is formulated to support a detailed investigation of the
antecedents that contribute to and consequences of job satisfaction of academics. The
framework incorporates government and universities policies, organisational factors and
work-life balance that have been identified within the research literatures as the antecedents
of satisfaction, and intention to leave as the consequence of job satisfaction.
This study implemented a sequential manner of collecting mixed methods data, which started
with a qualitative study followed by a quantitative study. The first stage of the study took the
form of semi-structured interviews with several key persons and focus group members in
order to identify core implications of the identified factors of job satisfaction. A thematic
analysis was employed to analyse each interview with respondents using NVivo. Quantitative
data collection in the second stage consisted of a pilot study and an online survey conducted
through a self-administered online survey tool- Survey Monkey. A total of 1078 academic
staff from three participating public universities responded in this study, representing a total
response rate of 35.7%. Descriptive and inferential analyses were employed to analyse the
relationships between all variables using SPSS.
Based on the data collected in both stages of the study, relationships were determined
between all variables. The study found several differences in all investigated variables based
on the demographic backgrounds of academics. The study also found that overall job
satisfaction mediates the relationships between several antecedents of job satisfaction with
intention to leave the organization. Moreover, this study has identified the significant role of
demographic backgrounds as a moderator between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave. The findings in this study are significant as it contributes very much to the theory,
practice and methodology of future research.
xxii
Statement of Authorship
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material
published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of
any other degree or diploma.
No other persons work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the
thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree of diploma in any other
tertiary institution.
All research procedures reported in the thesis were approved by the Faculty of Business,
Economics and Law Human Ethics Committee.
KHAIRUNNEEZAM MOHD NOOR

27TH MARCH 2013
xxiii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost,

I want to thank ALLAH, the Almighty, for the strength, for the bless HE granted me all the
way through the process of completing this thesis.
Second,
I want to extend my gratitude to my principal supervisor, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR.
SUZANNE YOUNG, who provided valuable advice and assistance, and kept me on track
and moving forward.
Shes been so motherly to me and will remain as a special person in my entire life.
Third,
a special dedication for my beloved wife, JULIEANA MANGSOR, the one who was so
inspiring, full with perseverance, keeping me motivated all the time in this remarkable
journey, with her love, with her care, with her tenderness, with her tears, with her smiles, and
with her laughs.
This thesis is my precious lifetime gift for you my dear.
Fourth,
the completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of my beloved
parents HAJI MOHD NOOR ABDULLAH and HAJJAH ZALIHA ISMAIL,
the apples of my eyes: KHAIRUNNNIESREENA and KHAIRUNNAUFAL, and my
siblings and in-law: KHAIRUNNAZLEE, SITI FAIRUS, KHAIREENA HAZREEN,
KHAIRUNNAZRIN, and KHAIREENA FAZIRA.
Without failure, they have been there for me all the time to instigate my motivation and
working spirit towards success
Fifth,
I would like to thank PROFESSOR PAULINE STANTON
from the School of Management, Victoria University for her vital guidance
in the early stage of the research process.
Sixth,
I also want to thank PROFESSOR GAVIN JACK,
my associate supervisor for his kind assistance in sharing ideas and constructive comments
on my work.
Finally,
I would like to thank all the participants of the interviews and the online survey, where they
gladly gave their precious time to take part and contribute for the completion of the study.
xxiv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This study was developed from the researchers experience as an academic in the
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM), one of the newly upgraded public university
colleges in Malaysia. Through the researchers experience as a public university
academic, personal observation on the development of Malaysian higher educational
sector, via formal and informal discussions with many colleagues and prominent
members of Malaysian higher educational sector, thorough analyses of the literature,
and quantitative and qualitative research, the current study focused on an academic
work-related attitude job satisfaction.
This study investigates the relationship between the antecedents of job
satisfaction with overall job satisfaction among academics of Malaysian higher
education institutions. Furthermore, this study also investigates the consequence of
overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention to leave the organisation. Next,
this study explores the mediation and moderation effects of several specific variables
in the study.
The development of higher education institutions in Malaysia has been rapid
since the establishment of the University of Malaya in 1962. The development
includes increasing numbers of public and private universities, intense growth of
student enrolments, expansion of courses offered by higher education institutions in
various fields especially in science and technology, the implementation of a
meritocracy system in students enrolment, the increased use of internet and web-
based teaching, the implementation of a more stringent assessment and appraisal
system, and additional government and private funding and accompanying research
opportunities (Ahmad, 1998; Din, 2001; Hassan, 2001; Kamsari, 2007; Ministry of
Higher Education, 2012).These changes have arisen from a variety of drivers such as
pressures of demand, a cultural shift in the way in which higher education is viewed,
1
financial issues, structural and managerial diversity, and an assortment of changes in
university mission or emphasis.
All of these changes demonstrate that university academics do complex work
in an increasingly demanding environment (Houston, Meyer & Paewai, 2006:17).
Hagen (2002) asserts that universities are the largest knowledge-based institution in
the regions; hence they are urged by industry and policy makers to transform their
traditional roles of teaching and research by adding an additional pivotal role in
economic regional development. It means that university academics are expected to
aid economic regeneration by disseminating their knowledge and expertise through
industry linked partnerships.
However, each party (industry, policy makers, society, government and
universities) needs to be aware that their demands on academics could contribute to
uncertainty in terms of the academic role which in turn affects their work-related
attitudes including job satisfaction. As Briggs (2005) argues:
...lack of clarity about roles introduces role ambiguity and role conflict with
significant impact on the achievement of personal and organizational goals,
resulting in employee anxiety and dissatisfaction and lack of organisational
effectiveness amongst academic staff (p257).
Furthermore, it also contributes to the other attitudinal and behavioural

drawbacks among academics such as low commitment, career burnout, high level of
intention to leave the organisation, discipline problems, and actual turnover amongst
others (see Abu Bakar, 1985; Abdul Rahman, 2001; Abdullah, 1992; Hagedorn, 2000;
Houston et al., 2006; Joiner & Bakalis, 2006; Nasurdin, Ramayah & Hemdi, 2005;
Newby, 1999; Noordin & Jusoff, 2009; Okpara, 2006; Toker, 2011).
The researcher believed that there were several pertinent issues in the
Malaysian higher educational sector which significantly and continuously impacted
the job satisfaction of academics in public university. These include the expansion of
the Malaysian higher educational sector, internationalisation of the higher educational
sector, corporatisation and privatisation, and quality improvement. The researcher
also believed that there were some important antecedents regarded by university
academics as pertinent sources of job satisfaction. Furthermore, the researcher
believed that the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction influence
2
a selected work-related attitudinal consequence which is intention to leave the
organisation.
This chapter provides a fundamental background of the overall thesis, and
introduces the area of concern for the research, canvassing the sections shown in
Figure 1.1.
Section Description
1.1 This section introduces the chapter and gives

Introduction an overview of the sections
1.2 This section describes the problem statement

Problem Statement & and significance of the research
Significance of the Study
1.3 This section explains the history and

A Brief History and background of higher education in Malaysia
Background of Higher
Education in Malaysia
1.4 This section states the aims of the research

Research Aims
1.5 This section describes the structure of the

Structure of the Thesis thesis and gives an overview of the whole
research
Figure 1.1: Organisation of Chapter 1
1.2 Problem Statement and Significance of the Study
This section explains the current studys problem statement, followed by the
significance of the study. According to Spector (1997), research findings suggest that
job satisfaction is not a static state but is subject to influence and modification from
forces within and outside an individual; that is his or her own personal characteristics
and the immediate working environment. Spector (1997:2) further defines job
3
satisfaction as the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction)
their jobs. Furthermore, Okpara (2006) argues about the significance of
understanding the job satisfaction of employees as:
work is an important aspect of peoples lives and most people spend a large
part of their working lives at work, an understanding of the factors involved in
job satisfaction is crucial to improving employees performance and
productivity (p226).
Many researchers have argued that personal characteristics of academics such

as gender, age and marital status, and working environments such as government and
organisational policy, workloads, compensation system, collegial relationships, and
work-life balance , have long been significant variables of academics job satisfaction
(Chng, Chong & Nakesvari, 2010; Ghazi, Ali, Shahzada, & Israr, 2010; Ksk, 2003;
Morris, Yaakob & Wood, 2004; Okpara, 2006; Oshagbemi, 1997a; Oshagbemi,
1997b; Rahman, 1997; Rogers et al., 1994; Saad, 1992; Saiyadain, 1996; Santhapparaj
& Syed, 2005; Toker, 2011; Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). There is also a
significant relationship between job satisfaction with work-related attitudes and
behaviours such as performance, organisational commitment, intention to leave,
absenteeism, and turnover (Brown, 2008; Locke, 1976; Nasurdin et al., 2005; Noblet
et al., 2007; Rahman, 1997; Saiyadain, 1996; Stallworth, 2004; Tahir, 1995; Toker,
2011).
In a global context, there are extensive studies of academics in higher
education. Job satisfaction has been investigated by Oshagbemi (1997a) among UK
higher education institutions academics. Also, research on university academics job
satisfaction has been conducted in the USA (see Hagedorn 2000; Polonsky, Juric &
Mankelow, 2003) in China and Taiwan (Tu, Plaisent, Bernard & Maguiraga, 2005), in
Nigeria (Akpofure, Ikhifa, Imide & Okoyoko, 2006), in Pakistan (Ghazi, et al., 2010),
and in Turkey (Ksk 2003 & Toker, 2011).
There is a scarcity of literature exploring the states of job satisfaction and its
relationships with other attitudinal and behavioural variables among Malaysian higher
education institutions academic staff particularly in public universities. For example,
in 1985, Abu Bakar conducted a PhD study on job satisfaction among academic staff
of universities in Malaysia. Specifically, the study investigated academics
satisfactions with their job by evaluating the specific aspects of the job and evaluating
4
the job as a whole (Abu Bakar, 1985). This can be considered as one of the pioneer
attempts to study job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public universities.
However, after more than 25 years, Abu Bakars study is no longer relevant since the
landscape of the Malaysian public higher educational sector has been subject to
continuous change and the current status of academics job satisfaction may be
dissimilar because of socio-economic development, government and political
influences, organisational environment, and the differences in terms of demographic
characteristics of academic staff themselves.
Another more recent study by Nasurdin et al. (2005) has determined the
influence of job satisfaction facets on organisational commitment among academic
staff in a public university in Malaysia. The work of Nasurdin et al. (2005) was of
interest in this current study because of the interrelationships between job satisfaction
and other attitudinal variables. This was also thought as a good platform to extend the
study of related and specific dimensions or antecedents of job satisfaction and their
relationships with job satisfaction and consequence variables which have not been
sought out by the past research particularly among academics in the Malaysian public
higher education setting.
Santhapparaj and Syed (2005) have examined the correlations between
personal demographic variables with job satisfaction of Malaysian universities
academic staff. Chng et al. (2010) carried out a study on job satisfaction among
lecturers of Penang Private Colleges Lecturers. However, these studies were
conducted only among private institutions academics and did not attempt to include
academics in public universities. The current study was also constructed to include
demographics differences, particularly among the academic staff in the public higher
education institutions in Malaysia.
Noordin and Jusoff (2009) have conducted a study of job satisfaction of
academic staff of a public university in Malaysia. This is the latest attempt made to
reveal the current status of job satisfaction among academics in a public university in
Malaysia. However, the study only investigated general feelings of satisfaction among
academics in one public university without any specific analyses on its relationships
with antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among academics.
At this time, the current association between the antecedents of job
satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and its consequences among academics in
Malaysian public universities is still undetermined. Hence, the antecedents of job
5
satisfaction, the state of overall job satisfaction, and the relationship of these variables
with the selected outcome or consequence of job satisfaction, which is intention to
leave the organisation, are investigated in this study.
This study is also initiated to fill a gap and scarcity in the literature pertaining
to job satisfaction particularly among academics in public higher education
institutions in the Malaysian setting. Firstly, most of the past research on academics in
the higher educational sector in Malaysia focuses narrowly on specific one-to-one
relationships of several of the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job
satisfaction; for instance, the works of Abdullah (1992), Nasurdin et al. (2005), and
Noordin and Jusoff (2009). Therefore, this study will provide an in-depth thematic
analysis of the identified antecedents of job satisfaction and further empirically
explore the association between all the antecedents with job satisfaction and
consequence variable of job satisfaction.
Secondly, as importantly demonstrates in the next chapter of literature review,
this study is also proposing the insertion of government and universities policies and
support as well as work-life balance as important antecedents of job satisfaction
alongside the other organisational antecedents determined by past research (see
Akpofure, 2006; Santhapparaj & Syed, 2005; Spector, 1997). This analysis will be
further broadened by conducting a series of statistical analysis on the
interrelationships between antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and
intention to leave, together with the differences based on demographic backgrounds of
the academics.
The findings of this study will be of benefit to the academics, universities, the
Malaysian government, and future researchers in making significant effort to describe
the state of academics satisfaction with the antecedents variables, their overall
satisfaction and intention to leave. This research is significant as it contributes very
much to the knowledge, practice and methodology for future research. The current
study also proposes an integration of a conceptual framework to become a noteworthy
basis for the establishment of the future research.
In the realm of its contribution to the practice, this study is expected to be able
to help other researchers, universities management, and the government in planning
their strategies and approaches to generate and sustain an excellent state of job
satisfaction among academics in higher education institutions. Issues and findings
6
explored in the current study can be a vital indicator and guide on the importance of
job satisfaction among academics.
Finally, in terms of the methodological significance, the research is anticipated
to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of having a mixed-method analysis which
incorporates qualitative and quantitative approaches of gathering data. According to
DeCuir-Gunby (2008), Hosie (2003), Talbot (1992), and Teddlie and Tashakkori
(2009), the strategy of having a triangulation-based analysis assists in reducing bias of
selecting a single method in a single study.
1.3 A Brief History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia
This section describes a brief of the higher educational sector in Malaysia in two sub-
sections. It starts with the first section of the history and background of public and
private higher educational institutions, reforms on Malaysian higher educational
sector, and rating system for higher education institutions in Malaysia. Next, the
section discusses the global context of higher education.
1.3.1 History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia
1.3.1.1 Public Higher Educational Institutions
The history and development of public higher education institutions in

Malaysia started with the establishment of the University of Malaya (UM). As
Malaysias oldest university, UM was established in April 1949 in Singapore with the
merger of the King Edward VII College of Medicine and Raffles College. The
University of Malaya derives its name from the term 'Malaya' as the country was then
known. The Carr-Saunders Commission, which recommended the setting up of the
university, noted in its Report in 1948:
The University of Malaya would provide for the first time a common centre
where varieties of race, religion and economic interest could mingle in joint
endeavour...for a University of Malaya must inevitably realise that it is a
university for Malaya (University of Malaya, 2012).
7
The growth of UM was rapid during the first decade of its establishment and
this resulted in the establishment of two autonomous Divisions in 1959, one located in
Singapore and the other in Kuala Lumpur. In 1960, the government of the two
territories indicated their desire to change the status of the Divisions into that of a
national university. Legislation was passed in 1961 and the UM was established on
1st January 1962 (University of Malaya, 2012).
Subramani and Kempner (2002) stated that upon independence, the main
thrust for national economic development focused on industrialisation and the
creation of employment for large numbers of graduating seniors from secondary
schools. The authors asserted that education in technology and sciences was deemed
essential to create a strong industrial sector to achieve the national goals. Hence, the
Science University of Malaysia or Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) was established
in 1969. In the 60's, demands were also made for the establishment of a university that
could meet the educational needs of Malays and the development of their language.
To propel and foster national culture, national values, national consciousness and
national unity, in 1970 the National University of Malaysia or Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) was established (Subramani & Kempner, 2002). UKM was the third
university established in Malaysia after University of Malaya and Science University
of Malaysia. In 2012, there are 20 public universities in Malaysia and the latest
government university established is the National Defence University of Malaysia,
established on November 2006 (Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, 2012).
1.3.1.2 Private Higher Educational Institutions
The Malaysian government is aware that due to economic strains it cannot be

the solitary provider of education and the best solution is to collaborate with private
and corporate organisations to fulfil public demand. The government believed that by
the year 2013 the number of students enrolled in local higher education institutions
would be more than 1.3 million (Kamsari, 2007) which doubled the number of
enrolments of 873 238 students in 2007 (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia,
2012). Public universities could not provide enough space for this enormous number
of students and the private education institutions have emerged to meet demand. The
establishment of private higher education institutions complements public universities
in providing greater access to a wider spectrum of students (Goh, 2005:17).
8
Subramani and Kempner (2002) argue that private universities offer equal and
identical places of study in term of quantity and quality to the public universities.
In June 2010, there were about 476 private higher education institutions
approved by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, including local universities,
college universities, community colleges, and foreign universities (Ministry of Higher
Education Malaysia, 2010). There are 23 private universities, 21 private university
colleges and five foreign branch campus universities (Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia, 2010). These private higher education institutions are offering either home-
grown degree programs or foreign degree qualifications and many of these institutions
have twinning degree arrangement with reputable foreign universities (The National
Education System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007). The mushrooming of foreign
education providers in Malaysia particularly led Ahmad (1998) to assert that this will
bring dilemmas for Malaysian society should there be an invasion of foreign
curriculum in the branch campuses, and an influx of foreign students in the country
(p 471).
To ensure quality education and to safeguard the interests of local and
international students, all private higher education institutions are required to register
with and be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and they must
abide by the Parliament Acts such as the Private Higher Educational Institutional Act
1996 and the Education Act 1996 (The National Education System, High-Tertiary
Level, 2007). In addition, all private higher education institutions are scrutinised by
the National Accreditation Board established under The National Accreditation Board
Act 1996. Under this act, private higher education institutions are required to establish
and maintain acceptable standards and quality of courses (The National Education
System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007).
1.3.1.3 Reforms in the Malaysian Higher Education Sector
Since the birth of Malaysia in 1957, the government has placed a strong
emphasis on improving the quality of teaching with the supply of better-qualified
teachers and lecturers, innovation in the teaching and learning processes, and
increased use of computers and multimedia in schools and higher educational
institutions (Hassan, 2001). Ahmad (1998:462) stressed the essential roles played by
the government in the countrys educational development:
9
Educational development and reform in Malaysia has always been
characterised by the governments efforts to adapt education to national
development needs. The essence of educational development and reformation,
as in other developing countries, has always been (and is) curriculum
development, to provide education for human resource development to meet
the needs of the social, economic and political development of the country.
There are two key aims on the development of the education system in
Malaysia. Firstly, the multi-faceted role the education system must take in creating a
united Malaysian society (Goh, 2005). Secondly, education acts as a vehicle for
economic and social development, with an emphasis on developing responsible
citizens to face the challenges of a developed nation, and in doing so, moulding future
Malaysians to be leaders of tomorrow (Goh, 2005). To that effect, Malaysia
emphasises at all level of education, a holistic (intellectual, spiritual, physical and
emotional) approach to quality human development (Ahmad, 1998:464). This is
clearly portrayed in the National Educational Philosophy:
Education in Malaysia is on-going efforts towards further developing the
potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce
individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically
balanced and harmonic, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such
an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable
and competent, who possess high moral standards and who are responsible and
capable of achieving high level of personal well-being as well as being able to
contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the
nation at large (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2005).
According to Zakaria (2001) the National Education Philosophy emphasizes

lifelong education, good citizenship, and the overall development of the individual
based on the belief in God, and the knowledge and skills necessary for effective
contribution to the social and economic well being of the nation. The National
Education Philosophy reflects that education is one of the critical drivers of the
nations development. Hence, the Malaysian government continuously assists and
provides physical, monetary and morale supports to all established formal educational
providers in the country.
10
In year 1996, new legislative measures were constituted and provided the legal
mechanisms necessary for a comprehensive reform of the education system and
among the changes was the introduction of the Education Act 1996 (Goh, 2005).
There were five acts that constituted the umbrella of the Education Act 1996 which
reflect the different sectors of higher education. The acts were the National Council of
Higher Education Act 1996, the Private Higher Education Institution Act 1996, the
Universities and University College (Amendment) Act 1996, the National
Accreditation Board Act 1996 and the National Higher Education Fund Board Act
1996.
According to Zakaria (2001), this legislation reflects the successful effort of
the government to position Malaysia as a regional education hub and facilitate a more
market-centred education system. Furthermore, the reforms within the various higher
education acts are seen as a vehicle to promote knowledge acquisition that can ignite
productivity, creativity, thinking minds, and the strategic application of knowledge
and skills in a globalised environment among learners (Goh, 2005:13).
The first aim of these acts is to enhance the quality of higher education in
Malaysia by allowing higher education providers to offer various courses that meet
market demand. Second, through these acts the government visualised their hope that
the nations education system could achieve world class education status. Third, these
acts aim to propel Malaysia into the new millennium and to the vision of achieving
the status of a fully developed nation by 2020 (Goh, 2005).
The establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education on 27 March 2004
marked an important part of history of higher education in Malaysia (Ministry of
Higher Education Malaysia, 2006; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012).
The Ministry of Higher Education took the governing authority from the Ministry of
Education for the Malaysian higher education sector, specifically overseeing higher
educational institutions and other government agencies involved in higher education
activities
Under the governance of the Ministry of Higher Education, the Malaysian
higher educational sector has developed constantly. The growth of higher education in
Malaysia can be seen in several areas including increases in student enrolment,
increases in the number of public and private higher education institutions, increases
in government spending on higher education especially public institutions, additional
government policies in promoting education, and the countrys continuous need for
11
human resources (Firdaus, 2006; Hashim, 2012; Hassan & Hashim, 2011; Kanji &
Malik, 1998; Mohd Noor, 2007).
1.3.1.4 Rating System for Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia
The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) Rating System for Higher Education
Institutions in Malaysia (its acronym is SETARA) was implemented by using a rating
mechanism to measure the performance of teaching and learning in universities and
university colleges in Malaysia (MQA Malaysia, 2013). The SETARA rating exercise
was carried out since 2006. The latest SETARA rating was for the year of 2011 where
it used a total of 25 criteria captured through 82 indicators comprising the generic
framework of Input, Process, and Output (see the brief explanation of the framework
in section 1.3.2.3). Benchmark figure were established for the indicators.
According to the Malaysian Qualification Agency (2013), data for the final
analysis were sourced from the institutions as well as the Malaysian Academic
Performance Audit (APA), the Generic Student Attributes (GSA) test score, the
Tracer Study, and the Employer Survey. The committee for this rating used a decision
support system program, in making decisions on the weights of the generic
dimensions, domains, criteria and indicators. The SETARA exercise classifies its
rating into six Tiers, ranging from Tier 1 as weak to Tier 6 as outstanding. Table 1.1
below is the full result for the Malaysian public higher education institutions,
sequenced in alphabetical order.
Based on the rating given by the MQA for the year 2011, it can be concluded
that the quality shown by all of the public universities was ranged between Tier5
(Excellent) to Tier3 (Good). Thirteen out of 20 public universities was classified as
excellent, while another six universities were rated as very good, which fulfilled the
Key Performance Index (KPI) set by the Ministry of Higher education (Ministry of
Higher Education, 2013).
12
Table 1.1: The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions
(SETARA11)
TIER6: OUTSTANDING
-
TIER5: EXCELLENT
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
ISLAMIC SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MARA
UNIVERSITY TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
TIER4: VERY GOOD
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA KELANTAN
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA TERENGGANU
UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS
UNIVERSIT PERTAHANAN NASIONAL MALAYSIA
TIER3: GOOD
UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN
TIER2: SATISFACTORY
-
TIER1: WEAK
-
13
1.3.2 The Global Context of Higher Education
Higher education is influential in the development of a country, as it not only

functions as a provider of knowledge, but also as a pertinent sector for the nations
growth and societal well-being. Thillaisundaram (2003) suggests higher educations
contribution is not only producing outputs of teaching (transmission of knowledge)
and research (knowledge extension) but also has a general community and social
services role.
The Australian government for example, regards higher education as
contributing not only to produce a knowledgeable and highly capable workforce, but
also to the fulfilment of societal potential, the advancement of knowledge, and social
and economic progress (Nelson, 2002a). Nelson (2002a) further asserts that
Australian higher education institutions have a broad public responsibility and it
means that they must act ethically in all their activities, including their research and
commercial undertakings.
This section discusses three major issues in the global spectrum of higher
education which are expansion and roles of higher educational sector, globalisation
and internationalisation of higher educational sector, and quality of higher educational
sector.
1.3.2.1 Expansion of Roles of Higher Educational Sector
The international tertiary education environment has undergone significant

changes since the early 1990s (Muller-Camen & Salzgeber, 2005; Polonskyet al.,
2003). Furthermore, the external pressures for change in universities are increasing,
not decreasing (Scott, 2004). These changes are due to new modes of organising and
delivering educational material, the emphasis on research over teaching, the
transformation of management models, and new funding mechanisms (Polonsky et al.,
2003). Fowler (2005) argues it is difficult to gauge which factor has had the most
effect, since many of them are inter-related (for example an increase in the number of
students, a decrease in the staff and student ratio, widening participation, an increase
in workload and a change in management style) which affected not only the
universities but also staff working in higher education. Houston et al. (2006) assert
that in New Zealand for example, tertiary reforms sought to redefine the role of higher
14
education to enhance national economic development, to make universities more
accountable to government, to treat students as consumers and to subject universities
to more centralised control mechanisms.
The role of university academics is no longer simply focused on teaching,
research and management. University academics are now expected by the society,
industries and government to play a vital part in a wider spectrum of responsibilities.
Houston et al. (2006:19) state that:
Recent dialogue regarding the place of universities in a knowledge society
has not necessarily reflected upon the impact on the workloads of faculty
given increased expectations for measurable outputs, responsiveness to
societal and student needs, and overall performance accountability.
These additional roles have pressured higher education institutions and its
academics to be more responsive to environmental change that happens in the internal
university environment and in the global spectrum. Hagen (2002) suggests that
universities need to respond to economic pressures of globalization in a similar way to
large corporations by freeing themselves from uni-dimensional, hierarchical structures
which are unresponsive and non-interactive with environmental change. Increasingly,
universities are expected to act as profit-based organisations and compete in the
educational market to gain revenue and at the same time contribute to the overall
industrial and national economic development.
1.3.2.2 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector
Globalisation and internationalisation are other challenges that impact on

higher education. Globalisation - above all, in terms of the increased mobility of
capital, the integration of markets, and rapid technological change - has presented
individual nations with stark challenges, to compete or face peripheralisation, to try to
secure a position as a high-wage, high skill economy, in contrast to a low-wage,
low skill one (Morris et al., 2004). The impacts of globalisation and
internationalisation on higher education include the content of management education,
the threat of competition from both local and international competitors, the role of
world-class research, reputation- and capacity-building, and the formation of
collaborations with like-minded institutions around the world (Cox, 2005).
15
Higher education has grown rapidly and now operates in the international
market. Organisations that operate only in the domestic markets can become obsolete.
Businesses typically need to grow and widen their market to survive, and to achieve
this growth those businesses choose to compete internationally (Cox, 2005).
Universities need to restructure their objectives, strategies and operations to be
competitive in the international market. They have to focus on achieving international
standards in teaching and learning, research quality, technology, managerial systems,
and industrial and government cooperation strategies. For example a number of
Australian universities have combined their strengths and capabilities through
alliances to gain more benefits to survive in the global education context. A report by
the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training states:
Increasingly, the Australian higher education system is seeking to build a
higher threshold capability to compete internationally in teaching and
research. To this end, a number of Australian universities have led the
formation of international consortia such as The International Network of
Universities, Universitas 21 and The Global University Alliance. Such
strategic alliances are complex businesses involving new patterns of around-
the-clock operations, and demanding new approaches to the management of
partner and customer relationships, product and service development,
marketing and logistics, and financial and reputational risks (Nelson, 2002b).
Mutual cooperation amongst universities is also being implemented by

English and American higher educational institutions. As Hagen (2002) points out
English and American universities are beginning to re-examine their traditional role
and are strategically addressing some of the resource issues by forging global
alliances amongst themselves. These educational alliances reflect strategies pursued
by Australian, American and English universities to assure that they are at the
forefront of the global educational revolution.
Taking note on the positive impacts of globalisation and internationalisation
on higher education, several leading countries in the Asian region, have also signaled
their intentions towards internationalising their higher educational sector and to
become a regional education hub. According to Knight and Morshidi (2011), the
Chief Executives 2004 Policy Address announced a plan to promote Hong Kong as
16
Asias world city which includes building Hong Kongs capacity to serve as a
regional higher education hub (p 598).
Knight and Morshidi (2011) further elaborated that, a key theme in this plan,
which has relevance for their hub model, is the development of an interlocking system
where the whole higher education sector is viewed as one force, with each institution
fulfilling a unique role, based on its individual mission and particular strengths
(p599). Hence, differentiation of role and international competitiveness of each
institutions teaching and research strength are identified as the backbone for domestic
reform and an important feature for the internationalization effort (Aihara, 2009: 89).
In Singapore, the Global Schoolhouse is the official name of the countrys
initiative to develop a regional educational hub of students, scholars and research
expertise. Plans to attract foreign institutions to Singapore started in 1997 with
Singapores goal of attracting 10 world class universities by 2007 (Knight &
Morshidi, 2011: 597). Reputable universities have been invited from China, USA,
Australia, France, India, Germany and the Netherlands to offer niche programs
according to their individual strengths. The most recent developments include the
establishment of Singapore University of Technology and Design in collaboration
with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Zhejiang University from China
(Knight & Morshidi, 2011: 598). By offering an interdisciplinary program based on a
tripartite model with its American and Chinese partners Singapore demonstrates it
agility to creatively build education and research partnerships with international
universities and further its progress to becoming a regional education hub
(Lasanowski, 2009).
1.3.2.3 Quality of Higher Educational Sector
To remain successful in global competition, the issue of quality emerges as a

challenge for higher education along with other pertinent questions such as: How do
we judge a university that has good quality? What type of roles should be played by a
university? What kind of activities does a university need to engage with? Dator
(2004:4) for instance argues on the understanding of quality in higher education
institutions:
Answers to what roles and activities that must be accordingly and actively
played by higher education institutions help then determine what is taught, and
17
what is not taught; who teachers are and how they are educated; who pays
for education, and how much; who decides what is taught, and in what
sequence; what the educational delivery system is like; and who determines
whether whatever is to be taught has been taught well or notits quality.
Defining quality in higher education is a challenge (Nelson, 2002c). Some

universities base quality on teaching and learning process, but there are also different
quality attributions through other activities like research, management, contribution to
society, financial accountability and capability of graduates produced (Mohd Noor,
2004; Rahim, 2007; Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007; Ramakrishnan, 2005).
Chua (2004) adopted a system approach and an InputProcessOutput (IPO)
framework to classify the quality attributes of education. Chua (2004) proposes that
Input refers to the entry requirements and selection of students, Process refers to
the teaching and learning process, and Output refers to the employability and
academic standings. To sustain good quality, universities and academic staff must
uphold all of these attributes, since they are vital determinants of university standards
perceived by students, stakeholders, society and government.
1.4 Research Aims
The topic for this research is constructed by four focal aims. Firstly, this study aims to
explore the antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in public higher
education institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aims to examine the
interactions between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job
satisfaction of the academics and their intention to leave. Thirdly, this study aims to
investigate the consequence of overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention
to leave the organisation. Fourthly, this study aims to investigate the mediation and
moderation effects of several specific variables in the study.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis
The thesis is organised into nine chapters. The thesis presents the development of the
research articulately. Although the chapters are written according to the normal
18
research sequences, the progress of the research is not particularly in accordance with
the chapter sequence. There are interconnections among different chapters and sub-
sections of the chapters, thus, they should not be read in isolation, but the paramount
approach to understanding the research is by briefly revisiting the related sections
when needed.
Chapter 2 focuses on the review of literature related on the background, key
issues, drivers and challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia, antecedents of job
satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave the organisation in general
and in the higher education sector in particular. The discussion is followed by the
construction of the research questions and a conceptual framework for the study.
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology. The chapter begins by
discussing the research paradigm of the research. Next, the chapter explains the
implementation of a mixed-methods research design, development of the theoretical
model for the study, sampling issues, assessment of validity and reliability, research
hypotheses, ethical considerations, and data analysis. This chapter also outlines
backgrounds of the qualitative study and quantitative study. The chapter specifically
explores the findings on the demographic data from interviews and online survey,
findings of normality tests in the online survey, measures of reliability and validity,
and explanations on several statistical methods used in the online survey.
Chapters 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 describe the satisfaction with
several antecedents of job satisfaction, with each chapter refining and clarifying these
variables through qualitative and quantitative methods.
Chapter 8 outlines descriptive and empirical findings of the online survey.
Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the research and concludes the research by listing
key contributions of the research towards theory, practice and methodology. Finally,
the chapter proposes recommendations for future research.
19
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The general aim of this study was to examine the relationships between the
antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave as the
consequence of satisfaction among academics in public higher education institutions
in Malaysia. Nevertheless, due to the inadequate number of Malaysian resources
found on each of the constructs and targeted group investigated in the current study,
this chapter focuses on studies done mostly in other countries and in several different
sectors and occupations in Malaysia. The pertinent goal of the literature review is to
examine important information about job satisfaction and its relationships with the
antecedent and consequence variables. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted
in Figure 2.1.
The chapter is structured into seven main sections. Firstly, the chapter begins
with the descriptions of background, key issues, drivers and challenges of the Higher
Education sector in Malaysia. Secondly, literature review of job satisfaction and its
antecedents are elaborated. In this section particularly, the definitions of job
satisfaction are defined together with elaboration on several job satisfaction theories.
Thirdly, the chapter discusses the antecedents of job satisfaction. Fourth, intention to
leave as the consequence of job satisfaction is explicated. Fifthly, the chapter
explains the construction of the conceptual framework for the study. Finally, a
summary of research questions for the study is detailed.
20
Section Description
2.1 This section introduces the chapter and gives
Introduction an overview of the sections
2.2 This section describes the key issues, drivers

Drivers & Challenges of Higher and challenges of Higher Education in
Education in Malaysia Malaysia
2.3
Literature Reviews of Job This section elaborates on job satisfaction and
Satisfaction & Theories related theories
2.4 This section describes the antecedents of job

Antecedents of
satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
2.5 This section explains intention to leave as the

Consequence of Job consequence of job satisfaction
Satisfaction: Intention to Leave
2.6
Conceptual Framework for the This section explains the construction of the
Study conceptual framework for the study
2.7
This section details the summary of research
Summary of Research
questions in the study
Questions
2.8
Conclusion The section concludes all the preceding
sections in the chapter.
21
2.2 Drivers and Challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia
This section describes the key issues and challenges in the Malaysian higher
educational sector.
2.2.1 Key Issues and Challenges in the Malaysian Higher Educational Sector
From the Malaysian perspective, factors such as globalisation, socio-economic

patterns, university-industry partnerships, workforce demands, and political and
government policies are viewed as among the key issues and challenges in the
development of the higher educational sector (see Ahsan, Abdullah, David & Alam,
2009; Aihara, 2009: Badawi, 2007; Din, 2001; Hassan, 2001; Hill, 2000; Knight &
Morshidi, 2011).
Specifically, in accordance with the literature review of Malaysian higher
education sector, eight key issues and challenges are discussed below. They are:
i. expansion of Malaysian higher educational sector,
ii. internationalisation of higher education,
iii. corporatisation and privatisation of higher education institutions,
iv. improving the quality of the higher educational sector,
v. government support,
vi. human capital development,
vii. university-industry collaboration, and
viii. cultivating research and development in higher education.
2.2.1.1 Expansion of Malaysian Higher Educational Sector
Malaysian higher educational institutions are experiencing substantial growth

as a result of government expansion of the education industry (see Ahsan et al., 2009;
Kanji & Malik, 1998; Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, 2012; Mohamed,
2006). This growth is reflected in an increase in student enrolment, an increase in the
number of public and private higher education institutions, an increase in government
spending on higher education especially public institutions, additional government
policies in promoting education, and the countrys continuous need for human
resources (Kanji & Malik, 1998).
22
As well as supplying human resources for industry, the other functions of
Malaysian higher education as perceived by the government, industry and society are
to explore new knowledge and produce research outcomes to fulfil the public and the
nations needs (Arshad, 2007). A former Minister of Higher Education of Malaysia
argues:
The public is more demanding. They want the best for their children, and the
returns of their educational investments must be justifiable. In other words,
universities and other institutions of higher education today are meant to serve
society, in promoting the quality of life of citizens. They are the institutions
that will produce significant numbers of the workforce of the nation and
determine its position in the league of nations (Mohamed, 2006).
2.2.1.2 Internationalisation of Higher Educational Sector
The Malaysian public universities and most of the private universities focal
goal is for universities to become world-class (see Mahmud, 2007; Ministry of Higher
Education, 2012; Mohd Noor, 2007; Ramakrishnan, 2005; Subramani & Kempner,
2002). The goal has encouraged each university to upgrade the quality and quantity of
its human resources, physical facilities, research and development program and
curriculum. To attain world-class status, a university must prepare to face the
challenge of global competition, adopt more complex multidimensional strategic
objectives, and change physical attributes, mindset and learning activities (Hagen,
2002).
There has been some success in the Malaysian higher educational sector
especially in public institutions. For example, the University Malaya, University of
Science Malaysia and National University of Malaysia were amongst the top global
universities according to the Times Higher Education Supplement (O'Leary, 2006),
however, to maintain success in terms of internationalisation of higher education is
not easy. Mohamed (2006) argued that the government has identified three important
measures which need to be reflected by higher education institutions if they want to
be truly global. First, they need to have meaningful representation of international
students in the institutions. Second, they need to incorporate more international
23
content into their research and teaching. Third, they need to form strategic
partnerships with reputable higher learning institutions overseas.
The Malaysian government is committed to the efforts of internationalisation
of its higher educational sector. Mohamed (2006) argues:
We want our higher education institutions to be well known internationally.
We want the work of our professors, to be cited by intellectuals globally. We
want our universities to be world class resource centres, which would extend
the frontiers of knowledge, and contribute towards human development
(Mohamed, 2006).
The desire among local Malaysian universities to be in the international

market is based on the success of universities in other nations. The success in the
internationalisation efforts shown by higher education institutions in United Kingdom,
United States of America, Australia and New Zealand have been noted by the
Malaysian universities. Australian universities for instance, have successfully
implemented their strategies of exporting higher educational services, which
generates much-needed revenue for the Australian universities and contributes more
than AUD5 billion income to Australias national economy (Rizvi, 2004). Onshore
enrolments of international students in higher education dominate Australia's
international trade in education (Disney, 2004). On top of that, the growth in the
number of international students, which has averaged more than ten per cent per year
over the past decade, has been cited as a major indicator of success, and these students
contribute about thirty per cent of the total revenue of many Australian universities
(Rizvi, 2004).
Presently, the government has already implemented new educational policies
and strategies to attract foreign students to study in Malaysian universities. The
establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education along with the promulgation of
Education Act 1996 reinforced the eminent development of higher educational
institutions especially the private education sector in Malaysia (Goh, 2005; Mahmud,
2007; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012). The Malaysian government
believes that in order to achieve success through these reforms, the government and
universities will need to focus on strong research, effective leadership and
management, and impeccable academic standards (Ahsan et al., 2009). The distinction
of these reforms is proven by the fact that the number of foreign students rose from
24
13,472 (2.34%) of overall students enrolled in Malaysian universities in 2001, to
33,903 (6.0%) in 2005, and 62,705 in 2010 (11%) (Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia, 2012a; Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b). These reforms not
only aid and push Malaysia into the new millennium, they contribute to the vision of
achieving the status of a fully developed nation by 2020 (Aihara, 2009; Goh, 2005),
and enhance the Malaysian higher educational sector towards success in the
international market.
2.2.1.3 Corporatisation and Privatisation of Higher Education Institutions
The Malaysian government has responded to globalisation challenges in

higher education (Yusof & Mohamed, 2002) by improving and advancing existing
systems through the corporatisation of public universities and encouraging the
development of private higher education (Hashim, 2012). In tandem with the
governments drive to promote greater independence and creativity to enable better
management in producing either goods or services, especially those of public interest,
other entities have also been corporatised and some even privatised (Yusof &
Mohamed, 2002). It is believed that the introduction of privatisation of public higher
education is based on the previous success of the corporatisation of other government
departments or subsidiaries, for example, the privatisation of the government owned
telecommunications department, the Jabatan Telekom (now Telekom Malaysia
Berhad) in 1986, government power authority, the National Electricity Board (Now
Tenaga Nasional Berhad) in 1990, the National Heart Institute in 1992, and the
Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic System (MIMOS) in 1996.
The corporatisation of public higher education began with University Malaya
in January 1998. Based on this success, it was followed by the other public
universities. Yusof and Mohamed (2002:78) argue that
Through corporatisation, higher education institutions gain autonomy in
decision making pertaining to daily business operations without having to
adhere to bureaucratic regulations and procedures. Commercialisation, as a
result of pursuing corporatisation, gives rise to economies of scale and
improvements in services, moves towards capturing a larger market share and
induces healthy competition.
25
Also, it is through corporatisation that universities gain an increase in public
confidence. For example, autonomy for corporatised universities provides more
opportunities for them to develop their own academic programs and to run these
programs in a more focused and effective way while still remaining accountable to the
government (Yusof & Mohamed, 2002). However, corporatisation of higher
education has its possible drawbacks as Sawyer, Johnson and Holub (2007:2) argue:
When a university becomes a corporate university, the language of the market
replaces the language of learning; the university becomes a firm, the university
system becomes an industry, education becomes a product, and the academic
is homogenized.
According to Sawyer et al. (2007), the nature of a corporatised university

brings greater challenge for university management to operate independently and
generates additional workloads among academics and administrators. Corporatisation
is also assumed as a possible trigger towards academics disssatisfaction which in turn
leads to other work-related attitudes and behaviours such as organisational
commitment, intent to leave, and turnover (Arshad, 2007; Hassan & Hashim, 2011;
Iqbal, Kokash & Al-Oun, 2011; Mohd Noor, 2007; Rahim, 2007; Yusof & Mohamed,
2002).
In regards to privatisation, Goh (2005) argues that the government has
encouraged the private sector to play a more active role in providing more places for
students to enrol for their tertiary studies. The encouragement is based on some issues
like the failure of public universities to provide enough places for increasing demand
for tertiary education. With limited spaces to cater for enormous numbers of qualified
students, private higher education is an alternative for students to pursue their tertiary
education. Goh (2005) also suggested that the establishment of private higher
educational institutions complements the public institutions in providing greater
access to a wider spectrum of students, especially in producing professional
individuals knowledgeable in science and technology.
The government has also allowed private university colleges and foreign
universities to offer joint degrees and has invited foreign universities to import
international branch campuses, set up management and information technology
instruction centres and conduct individual courses to be taught in Malaysia institutions
(Ng, 2005).
26
The government influence on universities, its teaching staff, and students are
also considered to be an imposition (Oii, 2005). One example of this is the
appointment of vice chancellors in public universities as political appointees made at
the pleasure of the Minister. This practice has proven to be susceptible to patronage
whilst posing a hindrance for the academia to be promoted to the Vice Chancellor's
post based on academic qualification and experience (Mohamed, 2006). The
government has revealed that they are presently reviewing procedures and legislation,
to find ways of giving universities more room to flourish academically (Hassan and
Hashim, 2011) and empowered these universities to ensure they can take direct
control of their actions. This empowerment strategy is being implemented through
the corporatisation of public universities and privatisation of higher education.
These reforms of corporatisation and privatisation have actually generated
much anxiety among academics. As Sawyer et al. (2007) suggest that, when
universities became corporate universities, the constraints that defined universities
changed. Sawyer et al. (2007) also argue that the values of the old university, of
scholarship, truth and freedom, were replaced by the values of the market. Education
became a product, the university a firm, and the university system an industry.
Hassan (2001) argues when universities became corporate universities,
academic staff feared that universities authorities would give excessive attention to
entrepreneurial activities at the cost of academic quality and freedom of the
universities. Hence, this means that academics will not only work as an academic, but
also as salespersons or marketing people in order to support the survival of the
universitys business-driven education (Hashim, 2012; Kamsari, 2007; Knight &
Morshidi, 2011).
2.2.1.4 Improving the Quality of Higher Educational Sector
Increasingly tertiary educators are being called to account for the quality of
education that they provide (Firdaus, 2006). The Former Prime Minister of Malaysia,
Mister Ahmad Badawi stated that the government wants all higher education
institutions to upgrade the quality of courses and programs offered by them and
further help the government achieve the mission of forming Malaysia as the regional
educational hub (Utusan Malaysia, 2007b). To maintain the educational quality of
public universities, the Ministry of Higher Education has scheduled a three year audit
27
of universities curriculum effective from 2007 (Rahim, 2007). This three year audit
period is perceived as relevant as it could help universities to sustain the quality of
courses offered by them and match their curriculum to the globes rapid development
and needs (Rahim, 2007).
The quality of private higher education is also the centre of attention for the
Ministry of Higher Education. Started in June 2007, the Ministry had introduced a
national rating system as a benchmark for all private education institutions in
Malaysia (Utusan Malaysia, 2007b). The former Minister of Higher Education, Mister
Mohamed points out that this rating system will be implemented to measure the
quality of private institutions and act as a tool to scrutinise the progress of private
education institutions (Mohamed, 2006).
2.2.1.5 Governments Support for Higher Educational Sector
In regards to the importance of education and training as key components of

socio-economic policies, the Malaysian government has strengthened the national
educational policy with several objectives (United Nations, 2003):
These are to expand the capacity of educational establishments; to increase
access to all forms of education; to strengthen the delivery of services; and to
improve the general quality of education.
To achieve these objectives, the government has implemented several

education strategies and programs from pre-school to tertiary education. The
government has subsidised the educational sector especially for higher education. In
regards to the direction of development funds, emphasis was always directed to the
economic (infrastructure development) and social (education, health & public
housing) sectors rather than the security of nation (Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007, United
Nations, 2003). Between 2006 and 2010 the Government allocated RM220 billion for
overall development expenditures under the Ninth Malaysia Plan. About 37.5 per cent
from the total allocation was distributed to the development of the social sector which
includes education due to its importance in developing the nations skilled workforce
and preparation in becoming a knowledge-based country (Raja Zainal Abidin, 2007).
The large monetary allocation for education arose from the governments aim to focus
on the development of the nations human capital which is one of the prerequisites of
28
attaining higher value-added growth based on the recent trends and development of
knowledge and technology.
2.2.1.6 Human Capital Development via Higher Educational Sector
Human capital is the key driver of growth in the knowledge-based economy

and will determine the competitive position of the nation (Economic Planning Unit,
2007). Consequently, the Malaysian government has long realised the needs to boost
the skills of its workforce if it is to avoid long-term economic problems
(Ramakrishnan, 2005). In tandem with the needs of developing its human capital
capability, the Higher Education Ministry stressed the importance of higher education
institutions in producing more capable and skilled knowledge workers. The former
Minister of Higher Education once argued that in knowledge-based economies,
universities must have academic staff that are well qualified, well trained, and
committed to academic and research work (Mohamed, 2006).
The successful development of the knowledge-based economy will, therefore,
largely depend on the quality of the education and training system (Raja Zainal
Abidin, 2007). The government continually reviews the education system including
the curriculum, teaching methods, enrolment at the tertiary level and the quality of the
teaching profession to enable it to meet the manpower requirements of the
knowledge-based economy (Economic Planning Unit, 2007).
The government also acknowledged the need to provide a greater access to
tertiary education in order to achieve the target of a 40 per cent participation rate of
the age group 17-23 years by 2010 (Kamsari, 2007). The Government explained that
enrolment at the post-graduate level would be expanded to meet the target of 25 per
cent of the total enrolment at degree level by 2010. The Government planned to
implement a special programme to increase the enrolment of postgraduate students,
particularly in science and technology programs.
As argued by Kamsari (2007) in the preceding section, enrolment in tertiary
education institutions at all levels between 2006 to 2010, is expected to increase to 1.3
million in 2010 with 32.3 per cent at first degree and 35.8 per cent at diploma levels.
To cater for the projected increase in demand for associate professionals and
technicians, more courses, particularly at the diploma level were offered (Kamsari,
2007).
29
2.2.1.7 University-Industry Collaboration
Collaboration between higher education and industry is deemed as beneficial

to the universities themselves (Mohd Noor, 2007). The former Minister of Higher
Education, Mustapha Mohamed, believed that it would help universities to ensure that
curriculum and research are abreast of current needs and perceived as an intelligent
co-operation to develop highly knowledgeable workers as needed by industry (Utusan
Malaysia, 2007a). Based on this belief, the government encourages all public and
private universities to collaborate with the industry especially those operated in the
fields related to science and technology (Mohd Noor, 2007). For example, the
Multimedia University of Malaysia (one of the Malaysian private university) joined
with the multinational companies of Nokia and Microsoft, with these two
multinational companies investing about RM10 million each to set up their own
market-driven laboratories in the university (Shankar, 2005).
In tandem with this collaboration, university academics are also encouraged to
do sabbatical leave or practical training in the industries where their universities have
collaboration. Academics were also encouraged to congregate their knowledge and
skills with the technology provided by the industries in order to develop new findings
or products which benefits both universities and industries. It is believed that with
these hands-on practical training programs, collaboration and congregation between
university academics and the industries will gain multiple benefits for the academics
themselves and not only generate better outcomes for the market-driven industries,
but also promulgate better knowledge for their students and society in general
(Arshad, 2007; Mohd Noor, 2007).
2.2.1.8 Cultivating Research and Development in Higher Education
Other than the teaching, research output is considered as the other sphere of
universities output. Thillaisundaram (2003) asserts that research output refers to all
additions to knowledge produced by a university or higher education institution in the
form of publications, patents, and development work.
Research and development (R&D) of universities is one of the main priorities
of the Ministry of Higher Education (Mohamed, 2006). With strong monetary and
30
physical support given by the ministry, public and private universities are pursuing a
more dynamic role in R&D programs across various fields of study. For instance, the
government has formed a working committee comprising researchers from UPM,
UKM, UM and USM to formulate a concept paper on the establishment of research
universities (RU). The vision of an RU expands existing philosophies and good
practices to enhance the overall education system and contribute to nation building.
The mission of RU is to be an engine of growth of the nation where scholars and
students exchange ideas as well as conduct research in a conducive environment that
nurtures exploration and creativity and discover knowledge and create wealth, leading
towards an improved quality of life (University Putra Malaysia, 2007).
Such efforts on R&D activities by these institutions, has produced greater
developments for those universities and also for the growth of the Malaysian
economy, through commercialisation and marketing of research findings and
products. The constitution of a RU has ultimately helped in producing more
academics that are capable of being world-class researchers. The Ministry of Higher
Education has declared that by year 2012, at least 75 per cent of academics in each
public university will have obtained PhDs (Utusan, 2007a). This is a challenge as for
example, in UKM as at December 2006 there was only 37.8% of overall academic
staff who were PhD holders. The proportions of PhD holders in other public
universities were more or less at the same percentage as UKM. It is believed that
those academics with PhD will initiate higher numbers of quality researchers and will
contribute to significant developments in the university and the nation.
Higher education plays critical roles inexploring knowledge and producing the
latest findings and innovation. Through these roles it was anticipated that higher
education will contribute actively in generating the development of industry, upgrade
the knowledge value among the society and enhance the nations productivity (Ali,
2003).
The introduction of the Intensive Research in Priority Area (IRPA) Programs
in mid-1980s under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)s
supervision is an important initiative to allocate resources in areas that are identified
as critical for further development (Ali, 2003). Through this IRPA program, public
universities are invited to apply for research funding especially in the area as
identified by MOSTI (Economic Planning Unit, 2007). In between the years 2000 to
2005, a total of 2,139 projects valued at RM836.9 million were approved under the
31
IRPA program (Economic Planning Unit, 2007). An assessment of 1,233 IRPA
projects implemented during the mentioned years indicated, among others, the filing
of 544 intellectual property rights such as patents, industrial designs, and copyrights
as well as 4,872 publications including national and international papers (Ali, 2003).
IRPA program is one financial support given by the government for academic
staff members in public universities to conduct research and development activities
accordingly to their area of expertise. Furthermore, academics that have been granted
an IRPA grant will be able to commercialise their research and increase the linkages
between the university and industrial sector. Hassan (2001) argued that the
government aimed to use the linkages so to transfer research activities in universities
to be marketable and commercialised products in the industrial market.
Mahmud (2007) argued that universities and academics had been questioned
by the industry about their weak contribution to the industrial society. Industry
claimed that most of the research and development programs conducted by academics
have not really been applicable and do not have an acceptable commercial value for
the industry. Many have urged universities to upgrade, maximise and disseminate
outcomes of their academic research to become useful products for the public
(Mohamad, 2002; Mohd Noor, 2007). This is a challenge to university academics
especially those in the critical areas of interest such as science and technology in order
to satisfy the increasing needs of relevant outcomes and products as not only desired
by the industry but also for the benefits of the society.
2.2.2 Summary for Drivers and Challenges of Malaysian Higher Education
Academics in higher education of Malaysia are expected to uphold the

nations aspiration of achieving a world class education level and produce multi-
skilled and competent individuals (Hashim, 2012). On top of that, academics are an
important player in nurturing the governments aims for the harmonisation and
oneness of its people that will then carry the aspiration of the nation towards being a
fully developed country by the year 2020. Their contribution in disseminating
knowledge and cultivating the value of research and innovation has always been
scrutinised by the government, the industry and the society. As evidenced by recent
key policy decisions, education in the country is being liberalised, as educational
32
achievement is seen to be the cornerstone from which national prosperity can be
constructed (Knight and Morshidi, 2011: 603).
To summarise, global and national continuous development in education
produces significant challenges for higher education and academics. Issues such as
globalisation, internationalisation of education, societal and industrial demands, and
government intervention policies are some of the variables that affect higher
education and academics (Lasanowski, 2009; Arshad, 2007). The socio-economic and
political drivers of higher education might have a significant influence on academics
attitudes and behaviours. The impacts of these key issues and drivers on academics
need to be vigilantly managed by the government and the universities, as academics
may view them as burdens rather than as challenges.
In particular, higher education academics attitude of job satisfaction is
important to the higher educational sector in Malaysia generally, and to the
universities primarily. As reported in past research, it was consistently found that job
satisfaction has significant impact on academics excellent performance, high
commitment, and low turnover (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009: 125). On top of thatjob
satisfaction is crucial and may contribute more than one can expect towards
achieving universities and the higher educational sectors strategic goals and in the
contribution of significant impact on assisting the development and sustainability of
the sector (see Abdulsalam & Mawoli, 2012; Adekola, 2012; Hashim, 2012). Simply
said, happy academics will in turn be highly performed and highly committed
workers, and the universities and the higher education sector will benefit in terms of
having quality academics.
2.3 Literature Reviews of Job Satisfaction and Theories
2.3.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction
For one to know the meaning of job satisfaction is not difficult. Researchers
and scholars had searched for the meaning of job satisfaction through systematic
investigations, field works, and meta analyses. However, even though many
researchers define job satisfaction, the definitions vary (Brown, 2008: 19).
As argued by Brown (2008), to grasp the meaning of construct like job
satisfaction, it seems logical to look at how it is defined in the literature (p19). There
33
is a high level of agreement amongst management scholars on the meaning of job
satisfaction. Typically, job satisfaction is conceptualized as a general attitude toward
an object (Oshagbemi, 1999). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable
or positive emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one's job experiences. Job
satisfaction describes how comfortable a person is with his or her job. It is an
attitudinal variable that reflects how people feel about their jobs overall as well as
various aspects of their jobs (Spector, 1996:214).
Locke (1976) asserts that job satisfaction can be considered as a global
feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or
facets of the jobs. Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of ones job and job experience (Graham and Messner,
1998). Job satisfaction is also perceived as a favourableness or unfavourableness
with which employees view their work (Castle, 2006). According to Spector (1996),
job satisfaction is an attitude toward the job and involves affective, cognitive and
behavioural components about various related aspects such as pay, promotion, work
tasks, co-workers, supervisors, and others. Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as
the psychological disposition of people toward their work. Vroom (1995) asserts the
concept of job satisfaction as interchangeably with job attitudes where he explains:
The terms job satisfaction and job attitudes are usually used interchangeably.
Both refer to affective orientations on the part of individuals toward work
roles that they are presently occupying. Positive attitudes toward the job are
conceptually equivalent to job satisfaction and negative attitudes toward the
job are equivalent to job dissatisfaction.
Herzberg (1976) found that job attitudes are a powerful force and are
functionally related to the productivity, stability, and adjustment of the industrial
working force; and the positive effects of high attitudes are more potent than the
negative effects of low attitudes. Thus, delineation of the factors that produce a
positive attitude about work is important to the improvement of job performance
(Newby, 1999).
According to Okpara (2006), job satisfaction refers to a persons constructive
poignant response to a particular job, and it is an affective reaction to a job that results
from the persons comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired,
anticipated or deserved (p225).
34
Brown (2008) asserts that job satisfaction from an employees standpoint, is a
desirable outcome in itself. On the other hand, from an organisational and managerial
standpoint, job satisfaction is important because of its impact on absenteeism,
turnover, and pro-social citizenship behaviour, which manifest itself in helping co-
workers and customers, and being more cooperative (Brown, 2008:21).
In general, therefore, job satisfaction refers to an individual's positive
emotional reactions to a particular job. It is an affective reaction to a job that results
from the person's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired.
2.3.2 Contemporary Theories of Job Satisfaction
Regardless of the authors, it is generally agreed that job satisfaction involves

the attitudes, emotions, and feelings about a job, and how these attitudes, emotions
and feelings affect the job and the employees personal life (Stemple, 2004:9). There
are many theories of job satisfaction proposed by many scholars and researchers.
These theories have been developed through extensive research and studies
predominantly by western researchers, then either supported or rejected by others in
the field of work motivation and behavioural research (Stemple, 2004). The studies of
job satisfaction can be traced back to the Hawthorne studies, conducted by Elton
Mayo at the Western Electric Company where a series of experiments on factory
workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932, and Hoppocks monograph Job
Satisfaction in 1935 (see Gruneberg, 1976; Hoppock, 1935; Vroom, 1995). Mayo
discovered that job satisfaction increased through employee participation in decisions
rather than through short-term incentives (Adekola, 2012:3). Whilst Hoppock (1935)
discovered job satisfaction to be measured with simple questions such as Choose one
of the following statements which best tells how well you like your job: I hate it, I
dislike it, I do not like it, I am indifferent to it, I like it, I am enthusiastic about it, I
love it.
Present theories of job satisfaction fall into two major groups, content theories
and process theories (see Legg, 2004; Newby, 1999; Stemple, 2004). Content theories
were concerned with the specific identity of what it is within an individual or his/her
environment that energizes and sustains behaviour. In other words, what specific
things motivate people (Stemple, 2004). Maslows Needs Hierarchy and Herzbergs
35
Hygiene-Motivator Theory are among the major content theories (see Legg, 2004;
Sentovich, 2004; Stemple, 2004).
In contrast, process theories try to explain and describe the process of how
attitude and behaviour are energized, directed, sustained, and stopped (Klein, 2007).
To explain and describe attitudes and behaviour, these theories try to define the
major variables that are important for explaining motivated people (Stemple, 2004).
Gruneberg (1976) argues that process theorists see job satisfaction as being
determined not only by the nature of the job and its context within the organisation,
but also by the needs, values and expectations that the individuals have in relation to
their job. Among the major theories in this group are Work Adjustment Theory,
Valence-Satisfaction Theory and Equity Theory (see Goff, 2004; Legg, 2004,
DeMato, 2001; Waskiewicz, 1999).
2.3.2.1 Content Theories
a. Needs/Fulfilment Theory
In 1943, Maslow described human motivation as a hierarchy of needs whereby

the satisfaction of one level of needs triggers the movement to the next higher level of
needs (Maslow, 1954). According to Maslow (1954: 24-25) the theory is based on a
number of suppositions. First, man is always wanting a complete state of
satisfaction is rare and, even if it occurs, is of short duration. Second, a satisfied need
no longer motivates, and so the next level of needs must be focused on. Third,
movement from one level of needs to the next is usually a subconscious one.
The physiological needs represent food and water and the air we breathe; once
these have been satisfied our requirements for shelter, a roof over our heads must be
met (Newby, 1999; Porter et al., 2006; Brown, 2008). Then, attention is turned to
ensuring continued survival by protecting oneself against physical harm and
deprivation (Brown, 2008: 21), and this is identifies as safety and security needs.
Once supplies of these vital commodities are met, after time we will yearn for
the interaction of others, sometimes known as affiliation needs (Legg, 2004:31).
According to Brown (2008), this third level relates to peoples social and gregarious
needs, not the quasi-physical needs of the first two levels. Brown (2008) argues that
this level of affection and social activities needs reflects peoples need for
36
association or companionship, for belonging to groups, and for giving and receiving
friendship, affection, and love (p22).
Self-esteem and status needs must then be met. This fourth level needs
substantiate by Brown (2008) as the need for self-respect or self-esteem results from
awareness of ones importance to others. According to Newby (1999) and Porter et al.
(2006), this needs level represents satisfaction, feelings of achievement and
responsibility.
Lastly, self-fulfilment can also be termed self actualisation, meaning
reaching a zenith of self-development, a sense of purpose and satisfaction (Porter et
al., 2006). This needs level is also argued as the highest level of needs and includes
developing ones potential. It is evidenced by the need to be creative and the need to
have opportunities for self-expression and self-fulfilment.
All these five identified needs by Maslow can be applied into the context of
work. From the past studies, researchers had associated several key organisational
factors with Maslows needs levels (Mohd Noor, 2004). Firstly, the organisational
factors of pay, pleasant working conditions, and comfortable cafeteria are among the
needs of workers that are associated with physiological needs. Secondly, in the sphere
of safety needs, the issue of safe working conditions, company benefits, and job
security, are several of the compulsory yet critical factors that workers require of the
organisation.
Thirdly, rewards like love, affection, and belongingness which could be
categorised under social needs were associated with the organisational factors of
cohesive work group, relationships with peers and superiors, friendly supervision,
caring management, and professional associations. Fourth, the factors of social
recognition, job title, high status job, and feedback from the job itself, are related to
the esteem needs. Fifth, in terms of self-actualisation that related to the rewards like
growth, advancement, and creativity, several organisational factors that related to the
particular needs are for instance challenging job, opportunity for creativity,
achievement in work, and advancement in the organisation.
Maslows theory has received widespread recognition because of its intuitive
logic and ease of understanding (Jones & Page, 1987: 14), however, the theory has a
number of deficiencies, despite its apparent relevance (Porter et al., 2006). For
instance, Jones and Page (1987) argue that there is little empirical support for the
simplistic need deficiency or need- gratification notions which purport to explain the
37
movement through the hierarchy, and exceptions are rife in practice. Further, a
person may be trying to satisfy a number of needs at any one time, not everyone will
seek satisfaction of the needs in the order suggested; individual and cultural
differences will play their part (Porter et al., 2006:88). Even though hardly any
research evidence was discovered in support of the theory, it enjoys wide acceptance
(Brown, 2008: 22).
This theory relates very much to the study of job satisfaction of Malaysian
academics in higher educational sector. The issues such as what kind of organisational
factors have significant value and influence the academic staffs job satisfaction, are
of interest in the current study. Hence, this theory helps in terms of clarifying and
associating specific needs of university academics in Malaysia with the investigated
organisational factors which in the current study are the antecedents of academics job
satisfaction.
b. Hygiene-Motivator Theory
One of the most often researched and cited theories of job factors related to
satisfaction is Frederick Herzbergs Two Factor Hygiene and Motivator Theory
(Sentovich, 2004). The central proposition of Herzbergs theory is that the causes of
job satisfaction are qualitatively different from the causes of job dissatisfaction (Mohd
Noor, 2004). To reach his original theoretical standpoint, Herzberg interviewed 203
American middle class male engineers and accountants (Herzberg, 1971). His
questions were Think when you were most happy at work. What made you feel
happy? and Think when you were most unhappy at work. What made you feel
unhappy? Through these two questions, the interviewees were asked to relate times
when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present job or any previous job,
and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events giving rise to that
positive or negative feeling. Herzberg (1971) asserts:
The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to
satisfaction (achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and
advancement) are mostly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job
dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dissatisfiers (company policy and
administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working
conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction.
38
Two lists emerged based on consistent responses given by the participants of
the interviews:
Table 2.1: Herzbergs Hygiene and Motivator Factors (Source: Herzberg, 1971)
Satisfiers (motivators) Dissatisfiers (hygiene factors)
Achievement Company policy
The job itself- interesting and fulfilling work Supervision
Promotion Level of salary
Responsibility Interpersonal relations
Recognition for good work (achievement) Working conditions
Opportunity to grow in knowledge and capability
The use of the term hygiene factors has a medical resemblance because they
represent elements of the job which if removed or improved do not bring health but
merely prevent bad health (Sentovich, 2004). By removing the dissatisfiers, the
individual does not experience satisfaction (Porter et al., 2006:89). The
dissatisfaction merely comes to an end and the individuals feeling about this element
moves to a mid point (Sentovich, 2004). The elements that have a positive effect on
the individual are the satisfiers or motivators. These are the intrinsic motivators, and
are related to job content while the dissatisfiers are extrinsic and are related to job
context (Mohd Noor, 2004; Newby, 1999).
It is important to note that Herzberg does not suggest that the motivators are
any more important than are the dissatisfiers. However, the latter can act as a brake
on the former (Porter et al., 2006:89). Unless the dissatisfiers are dealt with, the
individual will find it difficult to enjoy satisfaction from the motivators. This can be
explained by way of a continuum depicted in Figure 2.2:
Dissatisfiers not deal with: Dissatisfiers: Motivators are provided:
Employee remains dissatisfied Dealt with employees Provided employees

motivation moves mid motivational needs met
point
Figure 2.2: Herzbergs continuum of satisfiers-dissatisfiers
(Source: Herzberg (1971) and Mohd Noor (2004)).
39
The current study refers to Herzbergs Hygiene-Motivator Theory to draw
attention to several key antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian
public higher education institutions. Although Herzberg (1971) theorised that there
were some antecedents identified as satisfiers or motivators and some as dissatisfiers
or hygienes factors, the current study has no intention of exploring any discrepancies
between these two categories of antecedents. The current study aims to investigate the
antecedent variables as proposed by Herzberg in terms of their abilities to work as
contributors towards the state of happiness with several aspects at the workplace
among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions.
2.3.2.2 Process Theories
a. Work Adjustment Theory
The theory of work adjustment as proposed by Loftquist, Dawis and Kanter in

1967, is based on the concept of correspondence between the individual and
environment (Stemple, 2004). As accentuated by DeMato (2001), the theory was
developed at the University of Minnesota as part of the Work Adjustment Project of
the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation in an endeavour to understand the
problems of adjustment to work. This theory includes a basic assumption that the
individual seeks to achieve and to maintain correspondence with the environment.
While many kinds of environments exist to which an individual must relate, achieving
and maintaining correspondence with one environment may affect the correspondence
with other environments (Stemple, 2004).
According to this theory, work then represents one such environment in which
one must relate (Stemple, 2004). Satisfaction then indicates the correspondence
between the individual and the work environment and formulated a theory of
vocational psychology that was based on the idea that the individual is a responding
organism (Stemple, 2004). As individuals respond to their environment, their
responding becomes associated with reinforcers in the environment.
Waskiewicz (1999) argues that the theory of work adjustment can be
summarised in the following statements:
1. Work is the interaction between an individual and a work environment.
40
2. The work environment requires that certain tasks be performed, and the individual
brings to the job the skills needed to perform the tasks.
3. The individual, in return, requires compensation and preferred working conditions
for performance.
4. For interaction to be maintained, the environment and the individual must continue
to meet each other's needs. The degree to which the needs of each are met is referred
to as correspondence.
5. Work adjustment is the process of achieving and maintaining correspondence and is
indicated by the satisfaction of the individual with the work environment and the
satisfactoriness of the environment with the individual.
Hence, in regards to the above five statements, work adjustment theory was
put as a pertinent indicator for academics in Malaysian public higher education
institutions as they act, react, and come to terms with their work environment thus
adjusting to the work environment (Stemple, 2004), which is their universities. In the
current studyin regards to work adjustment theory- an academic is assumed to be
satisfied with his/her job, if he/she corresponds positively with the universitys
working environment, or vice versa.
b. Valence-Satisfaction Theory
Valence-Satisfaction Theory was put forward by Victor Vroom. This theory

examines motivation from the perspective of why people choose to follow a particular
course of action (Vroom, 1964). Vroom introduces three variables which he calls
Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality. Valence is the importance that the
individual places upon the expected outcome of a situation (Vroom, 1964).
Expectancy is the belief that output from the individual and the success of the
situation are linked (Vroom, 1964). Instrumentality is the belief that the success of the
situation is linked to the expected outcome of the situation (Vroom, 1964). In another
words instrumentality is the degree of confidence individuals have that, if the task is
performed successfully, they will be rewarded appropriately (Goff, 2004:15). Figure
2.3 illustrates the conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory:
41
EFFORT PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES
EXPECTANCY must be INSTRUMENTALITY must VALENCE must be high.

high. Employees must be high. Employees must Employees must desire or
perceive that if they try perceive that if they perform at want the outcomes they will
hard, they can perform at a high level, they will receive receive if they perform at a
a high level. certain outcomes. high level.
Figure 2.3: Conditions of Valence-Satisfaction Theory

(Source: Robbins and Coulter, 1999:193)
At first glance this theory would seem most applicable to a traditional-attitude

work situation where the answer for the question of how motivated the employee is?
depends on whether they want the reward on offer for doing a good job and whether
they believe more effort will lead to that reward (Stemple, 2004). However, it could
equally apply to any situation where someone does something because they expect a
certain outcome (Vroom, 1995). Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-
interest in rewards but about the associations people make towards expected outcomes
and the contribution they feel they can make towards those outcomes (Legg, 2004).
The current study refers to the proposition of Valence-Satisfaction Theory by
Vroom (1964) to look at how academics in Malaysian public higher education
institutions relate between the expected outcomes and the contribution in terms of
performance they feel that they can make towards the outcomes.
c. Equity Theory
Back in 1965, John Stacey Adams articulated a construct of equity theory on

job motivation and job satisfaction, where the way individuals are treated at work
affects their behaviour and attitude to work. Equity theory is founded on the
assumption that workers expect justice, fair play, or equity in treatment by their
employers, and an employee seek a fair balance between what he or she puts into the
job and what he or she gets out of it (DeMato, 2001; Okpara, 2006; Waskiewicz,
1999). According to Guerrero, Andersen and Afifi (2007), much like other established
42
theories of motivation and job satisfaction, equity theory acknowledges that subtle
and variable individual factors affect each persons assessment and perception of their
relationship with their relational partners.
Adams equity theory also proposes that workers compare their own
outcomes, received from their jobs and the organisations, measured against the inputs
they contribute (outcome-input ratio) (Goff, 2004:15). Waskiewicz (1999) proposed
that individuals compare their inputs and outcomes to those of some relevant other
person in determining whether or not they are treated fairly. Outcomes include pay,
fringe benefits, opportunities for advancement, status, job security, and anything else
that workers desire and can receive from the organisation (Robbins & Coulter, 1999).
Adams describes inputs as employee special skills, training, education, work
experience, effort on the job, time, and anything else that workers perceive that they
contribute to an organisation (Goff, 2004:15). Workers compare their own
expenditure and contribution of effort, knowledge, experience, and skills for instance
with those of others in their workplace or field and evaluate whether what they are
receiving is equitable in comparison (Sentovich, 2004). If the workers perceive equity
in the comparison it will gives satisfaction to them. According to Robbins and Coulter
(1999):
Equity exists when an individual workers outcome or input ratio equals the
outcome or output ratio of the referent. Because the comparison of the ratios is
what determines the presence or absence of equity (not the comparison of
absolute levels of outcomes and inputs), equity can exist even if the referent
receives more than the individual worker who is making the comparison
(p194).
On the other hand, inequity or lack of fairness exists when outcome or input
ratios are not proportionally equal and this will then create tension and unpleasant
feelings for an employee (Robbins & Coulter, 1999:194). When the employees
determine an unequal outcome-input ratio, this can create job dissatisfaction and may
motivate the workers to restore equity (Goff, 2004). When the outcome-input ratios
are equal, workers experience job satisfaction and are motivated to maintain their
current ratio of outcomes and inputs. Workers can also raise their inputs if they want
their outcomes to increase. Figure 2.4 illustrates the conditions of equity and inequity:
43
Individual Referent Example
Equity Outcomes = Outcomes An academic contributes more inputs (time
Inputs Inputs and effort) to his job and receives
proportionally more outcomes (a promotion
and a pay raise) than his referent receives
Overpayment Outcomes > Outcomes An academic contributes the same level of
Inequity Inputs Inputs inputs to his job as his referent but receives
(greater than) more outcomes than the referent receives.
Underpayment Outcomes > Outcomes An academic contributes more inputs to his job
inequity Inputs Inputs than his referent but receives the same
(less than) outcomes as his referent.
Figure 2.4: Conditions of Equity and Inequity
(Source: Robbins & Coulter, 1999:194)
2.3.3 The Implication of Job Satisfaction Theories on the Theoretical

Framework of the Study
Job satisfaction theories were extensively referred to in past research as a

pertinent barometer to reflect the state of happiness or job satisfaction among workers
in various fields of occupations. According to DeMato (2001), many theories have
been proposed to explain the concept of job satisfaction, and early attempts focused
on understanding what contributed to worker job satisfaction (p22). In this study,
several theories of job satisfaction were associated and implemented into the
theoretical framework of the study as a means to explain the current state of job
satisfaction among academics in public higher education institutions, particularly in
Malaysia.
First, as stated in the preceding section, the current study refers to Herzbergs
Hygiene-Motivator Theory as a means to highlight several key antecedents of job
satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. Even
though, Herzberg (1971) theorised that there were some antecedents identified as
satisfiers or motivators and some as dissatisfiers or hygienes factors, the current study
has no intention of exploring any discrepancies between these two categories of
antecedents. The current study attempted to highlight whether or not these antecedents
44
as proposed by Herzberg also work as contributors towards the state of happiness of
academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions at their workplaces.
Secondly, the current study also looks at process theories to help in explaining
the attitudes and behaviours of academics in Malaysian public higher education
institutions. This is in accordance with Gruneberg (1976)s argument that process
theorists see job satisfaction as being determined not only by the nature of the job and
its context within the organisation, but also by the needs, values and expectations that
the individuals have in relation to their job.
Thirdly, in regards to the attempt of using process theories, the study refers to
the theory of work adjustment proposed by Loftquist et al. (1967) in order to highlight
the possibility that academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions
correspond tactfully with their working environment to create the state of satisfaction
in their jobs. Based on the theory it is assumed that the academics perform tasks
required by the work environment using their knowledge and skills, and in return,
they necessitate compensation and working conditions that are at least equal to what
they have contributed to the organisation.
Fourthly, the current study refers to the proposition of Valence-Satisfaction
Theory by Vroom (1964) to look at how academics in Malaysian public higher
education institutions relate between the expected outcomes and the contribution in
terms of performance they feel that they can make towards the outcomes.
Finally, the current study also takes into account the proposition in Adams
equity theory that workers compare their own outcomes measured against the inputs
they contribute toward the organisation, and in the same time evaluate whether this
equally in comparison with the other workers in the same organisation. It is assumed
that equality in input-output terms will eventually impacts an academics state of
satisfaction where one will experience satisfaction or happiness if he/she is rewarded
for works they did equally like what has been given to others, or vice-versa.
2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction
Of all the possible employee attitudes, job satisfaction has remained the most
focal construct in organisational behaviour (Oyler, 2007:10). The search for
identifying the causes and consequences of job satisfaction in various fields of jobs is
45
an ongoing area of interest for academics, social scientists and managers (Arif, Iqbal,
Islam & Hussain, 2012; Barnett, Marsh & Craven, 2005; Brown, 2008; Chng et al.,
2010; Ghazi et al, 2010; Oshagbemi, 1997; Ranz, Stueve & McQuistion, 2001).
Individual characteristics, job characteristics and organisational characteristics are
commonly studied as among the antecedents of and correlates with job satisfaction
(see Abdullah, 1992; Ali, Shaharudin & Anuar, 2012; Bashir, Jianqiao, Jun,
Ghazanfar, & Khan, 2011; Gabbidon, & Higgins, 2012; Oshagbemi, 1997b;
Oshagbemi, 1997a; Okpara, 200; Tanner, 2007). Work-life balance is another
significant variable studied for its relationship and correlation with job satisfaction
(see Gabbidon, & Higgins, 2012; Haar, Spell & ODriscoll, 2005; Heraty, Morley &
Cleveland, 2008; Marcinkus, Whelan-Berry, and Gordon, 2007; Nikandrou,
Panayotopoulou & Apospori, 2008). Work attitudes such as intention to leave, job
stress and organisational commitment, and behaviour such as organisational
citizenship behaviour, actual turnover and work performance, have been studied as
correlates with or consequences of job satisfaction (Adekola, 2012; Tett & Meyer,
1993; Seashore & Taber, 1975; Spector, 1997).
The current study identified several antecedents of job satisfaction based on
the work done in past research. This study on the job satisfaction of academics in
higher educational setting also regarded government and universities policies and
support (GUPS) as a pertinent antecedent of job satisfaction of academics. The
discussion on the issue pertaining to GUPS explained thoroughly in the preceding
sections, through a number of indicators found in the literature of higher education
sector globally, and in Malaysian Higher Educational sector particularly. The
subsequent sections will discuss the antecedents of job satisfaction specifically on the
organisational antecedents, work-life balance, and demographic characteristics.
2.4.1 Organisational Factors
Many studies on organisational factors as the determinants of job satisfaction

are available. Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist (1967) have listed 20 factors of
job satisfaction and half of those are organisational factors such as advancement, co-
workers, compensation, supervision human relations, recognition, company policies,
and security. Meanwhile, Spector (1997:3) argues that there are nine focal
46
organisational determinants of ones job satisfaction which are pay, promotion,
supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers,
nature of work, and communication. According to Murray (1999), these nine
antecedents of job satisfaction are the main factors that represent a cluster of
evaluative feelings about the job. Spector (1997) and Murray (1999) provide
descriptions and examples of these nine organisational antecedents which are detailed
in Table 2.2 together with empirical studies using these antecedents and their findings.
47
Table 2.2: Organisational Antecedents of Job Satisfaction
Antecedent Description Example Studies Using The Antecedent Findings
Pay Satisfaction with pay and amount and fairness or Mazlan (1992), Spector (1997), Mohd Pay is a significant and positive antecedent of
raises equity of salary Noor (2004), Akpofure et al.(2006) job satisfaction
Chng, Chong and Nakesvari (2010) Salary (pay) is significant in determining the job
satisfaction of lecturers in Penang state,
Malaysia
Brown (2008) Respondents have a moderate satisfaction with
salary
Oshagbemi (1999), Graham and Respondents are not satisfied with pay
Messner (1998) Koustelios (2001),
Barrett and Yates (2002), Akpofure et
al.(2006), Donnelly (2006)
Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) Teachers in Cyprus chose this career because of
the high satisfaction towards salary (and several
other factors)
Promotion Satisfaction with promotion opportunities and fairness Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist Promotion is one of the important determinants
opportunities of promotions (1967) of job satisfaction
Akpofure et al.(2006), Spector (1997) Promotion is significantly and positively
correlated with job satisfaction
Chng, Chong and Nakesvari (2010) Promotion opportunities are positively

significant in determining the job satisfaction of
lecturers in Penang state, Malaysia
Graham and Messner (1998), Respondents are not satisfied with promotion
Oshagbemi (1999)
48
Supervision Satisfaction with the persons fairness and competence at Brown (1993), Spector (1997), Chng, Supervision is correlated positively with job
immediate supervisor managerial tasks by ones Chong and Nakesvari (2010) satisfaction
supervisor
Brown (2008) Respondents were satisfied with their
supervisors
Donnelly (2006) Satisfaction with supervision is high among

academic advisers in higher education in the
USA
Oshagbemi (1997a) 70 per cent of the respondents among university
academics were satisfied with their supervisors
Wazkiewicz (1999) Supervisory relations was the only two factors

(other than ability utilization) found to be
related to job satisfaction
Fringe Benefits Satisfaction with fringe insurance, vacation, Spector (1997), Artz (2010) Fringe benefits is a significant and positive
benefits compensation, and other determinant of job satisfaction
fringe benefits Graham and Messner (1998) Respondents have a low satisfaction with fringe
benefits
Borooah (2009) The greater the weight that one placed on this
antecedent, the more likely one was to be
dissatisfied
Alam and Mohammad (2010) Nursing staffs in Malaysia were moderately

satisfied with compensation
Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) Teachers in Cyprus chose this career because of
the high satisfaction towards holidays they
obtained (fringe benefits)
Contingent Rewards Satisfaction with rewards (not sense of respect, Brown (1993), Spector (1997) Contingent rewards is a significant and positive
necessarily monetary) given recognition, and determinant of job satisfaction
for good performance appreciation Brown (2008) Respondents have a moderate satisfaction with
49
recognition
Donnelly (2006) Satisfaction with recognition is very low among
academic advisers in higher education in the
USA
Operating Satisfaction with rules and policies, procedures, rules, Weiss, Dawis, England and Loftquist Company policies (operating conditions) is one
Conditions procedures perceived red tape (1967) of the important determinants of job satisfaction
Brown (2008) Respondents have moderate satisfaction with

policy and administration
Oshagbemi (1999), Koustelios (2001) Operating conditions is a dissatisfying factor
Co-Workers Satisfaction with co-workers perceived competence and Spector (1997), Graham and Messner Co-workers is a significant and positive
pleasantness of ones (1998) determinant of job satisfaction
colleagues
Borooah (2009) People who spent time socially with their co-
workers were less likely to have low levels of
satisfaction
Brown (2008) Respondents were satisfied with their co-
workers
Donnelly (2006) Academic advisers in the USA are most
satisfied with co-workers
Nature of Work Satisfaction with the type of enjoyment of the actual Akpofure et al.(2006) Work tasks are the most satisfying factor among
work done tasks themselves college academics in Nigeria
Communication Satisfaction with sharing of information Spector (1997), Mohd Noor (2004) Communication is a significant and positive
communication within the within the organisation determinant of job satisfaction
organisation (verbally or in writing)
Donnelly (2006) Communication is strongly related with job
satisfaction
50
Recent research explores identified organisational factors in different contexts
of education workers. For instance Oshagbemi (1997a) through his study of
academics in UK higher education indicated that about 70 per cent of the respondents
which were selected among university academics were satisfied with their co-
workers behaviour, the job itself and supervisor. In the same study, Oshagbemi
(1999) also found that higher education academics were dissatisfied with pay and
promotion.
Zemblays and Papanastasiou (2004) examined job satisfaction and motivation

among academics in Cyprus. Findings of their study indicated that Cypriot academics
chose this career because of the salary, the hours and the holidays associated with this
profession. Wong and Wong (2005) in their study on the promotion criteria and
satisfaction found that the level of satisfaction with promotion is relatively low for
Hong Kong academics. A study among academic advisers in the USA by Donnelly
(2006), among other things, indicated that academic advisers are most satisfied with
benefits and co-workers, but least satisfied with salary, recognition, and support for
career.
Then, a study among 230 randomly selected colleges of education educators in
Southern Nigeria by Akpofure et al. (2006) found that educators were mostly satisfied
with their work load, followed by co-workers, supervision, and promotion. In this
study, it is also found that educators expressed a high degree of dissatisfaction with
their present pay.
Brown (2008) in her study among Northern Caribbean Universitys full-time workers
found that the respondents were neutral about their level of satisfaction with their
jobs. She also found that the respondents to be closer to a neutral response including
organisational policy and administration, working conditions, salary, recognition, and
growth. The study also found that relations with supervisors, the work itself, relations
with co-workers, achievement, responsibility, and relations with students were
included as satisfactory factors among respondents. Gabbidon and Higgins (2012)
examined job satisfaction among members of the American Society of Criminology
(ASC) and the Academy of Criminal justice Sciences (ACJS) in the United States.
The findings of their study revealed that those criminology academics with more
journal article publications, and devote more time to family and friends, had high job
satisfaction.
51
In the Malaysian context, Mazlan (1992) carried out a survey on selected 43
headmasters of primary schools in the Malacca State in Malaysia and found that there
were significant positive relationships between factors like responsibility,
accountability, salary and pay and affiliation among headmaster and staff with job
satisfaction. Mohd Noor (2004) in his study among academics in a secondary school
in Johore State found that teachers had a high satisfaction with the aspects of
supervision and nature of work. Teachers were also found to be moderately satisfied
with pay, promotion, and fringe benefits. It was also reported that teachers have a low
level of satisfaction with communication.
Santhapparaj and Syeds (2005) study of job satisfaction of academics in
private universities in Malaysia found that pay, promotion, working conditions, and
managerial support had a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction. On the
other hand, fringe benefits have negative effect on academics job satisfaction.
Accordingly, Chng et al. (2010) in their investigation among lecturers in three
established private colleges in Penang State, Malaysia found that management
support, salary and promotion opportunities are significant in determining the job
satisfaction.
The above findings of satisfaction on numerous organisational antecedents of
job satisfaction among academics globally and in Malaysia particularly, reveal the
importance of having a thorough investigation among Malaysian higher education
academics about their state of satisfaction on organisational antecedents.
This exertion is important as currently there is no evidence found in the
literature to have identified the state of satisfaction on all of the nine organisational
antecedents comprehensively among academic staff in Malaysian higher educational
sector, as proposed by Spector (1997) which are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and
communications. This is the gap that the current study is trying to fill, where the effort
of having the latest state of satisfaction on a comprehensive group of organisational
factors and its association with the general state of job satisfaction among higher
educational academic staff is needed in order to help the universities particularly and
the higher education sector generally, in generating the system of retaining the
academics satisfaction, happiness, commitment, and assisting the universities and the
higher educational sector to achieve their strategic goals.
52
2.4.2 Demographic Characteristics
There is numerous evidence that demographic characteristics are associated

with job satisfaction. In the current study, based on the findings in the literature,
several demographic characteristics and its association with job satisfaction were
determined. These include age, gender, tenure, and others.
a. Age
According to Stemple (2004) age is an important variable because employees

of any organisation usually vary in ages, and thus age is often studied by researchers
looking at job satisfaction. For instance, Brown and Peterson (1993) in their meta-
analysis on antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction found that age is an
important indicator of job satisfaction.
Koustelios (2001) study of Greek teachers suggested that personal
characteristics including age were significant predictors of different aspects of job
satisfaction. Castiglia (2006) in her study of job satisfaction among academics in a
private college also found that age is a significant personal factor on job satisfaction.
Bashir et al. (2012) also found that job satisfaction among academic faculty in 23
public universities in Pakistan varies with the demographic factor of age.
According to Brown (2008), mixed evidence exists in the literature concerning
the relationship between age and job satisfaction. Herzberg was among the first to
report the U-shaped relationship between age and job satisfaction (Brown, 2008:34).
Brown (2008) further asserts that Herzberg and colleagues suggested that while
morale is high among young workers, it tends to go down during the first few years of
employment; then the low point is reached when workers are in their middle and late
20s early 30s. After this period, satisfaction steadily climbs with age (Brown, 2008:
34). However, a study among Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996), found age to
be linearly related to job satisfaction.
In studies pertaining to age conducted by Newby (1999) among respondents in
the USA, by Noordin and Jusoff (2009) in Malaysia, and by Toker (2011) in Turkey,
older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger ones. Conversely,
53
these findings are inconsistent with Akpofure (2006)s finding, where Akpofure found
that academics in Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older. Tu et
al. (2005) found that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of age
for full-time Taiwanese and Chinese academics at higher education in the overall job
satisfaction. Similarly in a different setting, Sarker et al. (2003) found no significant
difference in term of age of overall job satisfaction among hotel employees in
Thailand.
Hence, it is anticipated that the current study will contribute to fill the gap in
the literature specifically on the current state of association between the demographic
characteristic of age and job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian higher
education.
b. Gender
There were many studies exploring the association between gender and job
satisfaction. For example, Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009) finding on employees in
small and medium enterprises in Australia, found that females are more satisfied with
their jobs compared to males. A study of correlates of job satisfaction among
Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996) found that gender did not influence job
satisfaction.
In the realms of the educational sector, a study by Oshagbemi (2000) indicated
that gender does not affect the job satisfaction of university teachers in the UK
directly. On the other hand, Koustelios (2001) study on Greek teachers suggested that
personal characteristics including gender were significant predictors of different
aspects of job satisfaction. In comparing the level of job satisfaction between different
gender, Newby (1999)s finding on academics in the USA reported that females have
higher job satisfaction than males. A study of job satisfaction among educators in
Colleges of Education in Southern Nigeria by Akpofure, Ikhifa, Imide and Okoyoko
(2006) concluded that generally female and male educators were not satisfied with
their job.
In the Malaysian educational sector specifically, Mohd Noor (2004) in his
study of teachers job satisfaction at a secondary school in Johore state, concluded
that female teachers had a higher level of overall job satisfaction than male teachers.
Noordin and Jusoff (2009) in their study among academic staff in a Malaysian
54
university, found that there were no significant differences between male and female
academics with regard to overall job satisfaction, and they conclude that overall job
satisfaction is not a function of gender (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009).
c. Tenure (in current university)
Very few attempts have been developed to investigate the relationship of

tenure, particularly tenure among academics in the university setting and job
satisfaction. For instance, Oshagbemi (2000) in his study among university academics
in the UK, Sarker et al. (2003) in their study among hotel employee in Thailand, and
Toker (2011) in his study among a university academics in Turkey found significant
differences of job satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies.
In the Malaysian higher education setting, literature investigating the
relationship between tenure and job satisfaction is sparse. Noordin and Jusoff (2009)
for instance, explored the association between age, gender, race, and basic salary with
overall job satisfaction of academic staff in a Malaysian university without
investigating tenure. Hence, it would be an interesting component of the current study
to use tenure as one of the demographic characteristics that predict job satisfaction of
academics in Malaysian higher education institutions.
d. Other Demographic Factors and Job Satisfaction
A study by Oshagbemi (1999a) among the UK academics found that

academics and their managers differ significantly on the levels of satisfaction which
they derive from most aspects of their jobs. Sources of these differences are identified,
and the general conclusion is that management position, characterised by seniority in
age, rank and length of service, affects university teachers' level of job satisfaction
positively. Furthermore, through the findings of the study there was a significant
negative correlation between education level and academic rank and the various facets
that determined job satisfaction (p108).
In relation to the management position, Lynch and Verdin (1983), found that
academics without a management position had a significantly higher overall job
satisfaction compared to their counterparts. On the contrary, Ranz et al. (2001) in their
study among psychiatrists in New York found that medical directors experience
55
significantly higher job satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This particular
finding is also dissimilar with that of Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009), where non-
managerial employees of small and medium enterprises in Australia reported lower
level of job satisfaction than managers.
In the Malaysian context, a study of correlates of job satisfaction among
Malaysian managers by Saiyadain (1996) found that marital status did not influence
job satisfaction. Conversely, year of education and experience were found to be
linearly related to job satisfaction (Saiyadain, 1996).
Through Ghazalis (1979) survey, it is known that job satisfaction among
school teachers is significantly different based on demographic variables e.g. school
size, school location (either in urban or suburban area), and teachers academic
qualification.
All in all, based on the literature on the association between demographic
characteristics and job satisfaction, the current study attempts to add to the job
satisfaction literature particularly in Malaysian higher educational sector the expanded
demographic scope of the higher education academics population.
2.4.3 Work-Life Balance
a. The Conception of Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance has always been a concern of those interested in the quality
of working life and its relation to broader quality of life (Guest, 2002). It is believed
that balancing a successful career with a personal or family life can be challenging
and impact on a persons satisfaction in their work and personal lifes roles (Broers,
2005).
Nevertheless, we need to understand the definition underlying the work-life
balance concept. Dundas (2008:7) argues that work-life balance is about effectively
managing the juggling act between paid work and all other activities that are
important to people such as family, community activities, voluntary work, personal
development and leisure and recreation. While Sverko, Arambasic and Galesic
(2002:282) assert that the meaning of work-life balance is:
56
an elusive term used to describe a state of harmonious or satisfying
arrangement between an individuals work obligations and his or her
personal life. We define it as appropriate arrangement of role-time
commitments that allows for good functioning at work and at home, with
minimum role conflict and maximum satisfaction.
Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw (2003) define work-life balance as the extent to
which an individual is equally engaged in and equally satisfied with his or her
work role and family role, thus, employees who experience high work-life balance
are those who exhibit similar investment, time and commitment, to work and non-
work domains (Virick, Lily & Casper, 2007: 465).
Work-life balance is a pertinent issue across all types of employees. As
Karatepe and Tekinkus (2006:175) assert single parents and other single individuals
may have same load of difficulty in balancing work with children, friends, relatives,
and other commitments outside the organisation.
Dundas (2008:7) explains that work-life balance is a significant issue in
organisation nowadays because the need for balance is becoming more recognised
because of the jobs we do, how we do them and the people employed to have
changed.
Dundas further adds that particularly, more women and sole parents are in the
workforce, and households now have to juggle the work arrangements of more than
one paid job. Moreover, the workforce is ageing fast and becoming more diverse,
businesses must compete globally to find skilled workers, standard working hours are
no longer suitable for customers or staff, and technology have blurred the distinction
between work and personal time.
Heraty, Morley and Cleveland (2008) argue that work-life relationships are
complex and multidimensional and remain an important ongoing academic and social
policy area that requires multidisciplinary and multi-level investigation and
collaboration. In assessing the work-life balance issue, it is important to understand
not only the underlying assumptions about work and life respectively, but also about
the relationship between the two (Eikhof, Warhurst and Haunschild 2007:329).
Three broad sets of overlapping issues pertaining to work-life balance policy
and practice identified by Guest (2002) are those concerned with developments at
work that might be seen as causing the problem of work-life imbalance, those relating
57
to life outside work that might be viewed as consequences of work-imbalance and
those concerning individuals and their lives outside work that give rise to the need to
address the challenge of work-life balance as a contemporary policy and practice
issue.
b. Association of Work-Life Balance with Job Satisfaction
Work-life balance has important consequences for employee attitudes towards

their organisations as well as for the lives of employees (Scholarios and Marks, 2004).
Guest (2002:256) believes that it is possible to investigate the trend of work-life
balance and its developments which influence the well-being and job outcomes of
employees at work.
Numerous studies have been conducted searching for the association between
work-life balance and attitudinal job outcomes such as job satisfaction (see Doherty &
Manfredi, 2006; Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton & Swart 2005; Scholarios &
Marks, 2004; Virick et al., 2007; Youngcourt, 2005; Zin, 2006). According to Moore
(2007), the extant literature on the subject of work-life balance tends to make numbers
of assumptions and one of those is that improving an organisations work-life balance
leads not only to greater productivity but to greater company loyalty and job
satisfaction. Samad (2006) asserts that previous studies revealed that work and life
factors are found to be an important concern of both individuals and organisations.
This is due to the conflict that arises from work and life/family factors will lead to
stress, resulting in negative consequences such as job and family dissatisfaction
(Samad, 2006:53).
Sverko et al. (2002) studied work-life balance and its antecedents and
consequences among Croatian employees. Among the results was that work-life
balance dissatisfaction led to higher job stress and low life satisfaction. Howard,
Donofrio and Boles (2004) in a study among police personnel concluded that work-
family conflict which reflects work-life balance issues is significantly related to
satisfaction with the job in general, pay, supervision, promotion, work, and co-
workers. The findings from this study also revealed that increased levels of work-
family conflict are negatively related to several different facets of employee job-
related satisfaction and that responsibilities in the workplace and responsibilities at
58
home cannot be perceived as mutually exclusive entities in employees lives (Howard
et al., 2004:387-388).
Karatepe and Tekinkuss (2006) study among front-line employees in Turkish
retail banks indicates that work-family conflict leads to detrimental job outcomes such
as job satisfaction. This is due to the nature of boundary-spanning positions where the
respondents in the study are often susceptible to heavy workloads and inflexible work
schedules (Karatepe & Tetinkus, 2006). In these circumstances, the authors assert that
front-line bank employees in the study are more unlikely to balance work obligations
with family and/or social commitments. The findings of this study also demonstrate
that work-family conflict does not have any significant negative effect on affective
organisational commitment. However the results of the path analysis reveal that job
satisfaction mediates the impacts of work-family conflict on affective organisational
commitment (Karatepe & Tetinkus, 2006:188). The finding of the path analysis by
Karatepe and Tetinkus (2006) is of interest to the current study specifically on the
function of job satisfaction as the mediator between a causal relationship, and this
mediation function will be elaborated further in Chapter 3.
Virick et al. (2007) studied layoff survivors in a high tech company and found
that work-life balance is positively related to job satisfaction. Marcinkus, Whelan-
Berry and Gordon (2007) found that work-life balance was positively correlated with
organisational commitment and job satisfaction in their study among women workers
across three organisations located in the Northeastern and Southeastern, United States.
Premeaux, Adkins and Mossholder (2007) gathered data at seven organisations in the
southern United States from a total of 564 participants to investigate the effectiveness
of family-friendly policies (FFPs) in reducing intertwined conflicts involving work
and family. This included an insurance company, a distribution centre, a
manufacturing organisation, a bank, a utility company, a not-for-profit service
organisation, and a hospital. Premeaux et al. (2007) concluded that a positive work-
family culture and family support may be more instrumental in helping employees
balance work and home roles. Furthermore, Premeaux et al. (2007) found that work-
family conflict and family-work conflict were negatively related to job satisfaction
and organisational commitment.
It is hard to find any research on work-life balance in Malaysia particularly in
the Malaysian higher education sector. One of the scarce attempts at investigating
work-life balance in Malaysia was made by Samad in 2006. Her study determined the
59
association between work related factors and family related factors with the womens
well-being, mainly job satisfaction and family satisfaction among 500 non-
professional married-working women from the selected manufacturing and electronic
industries Samad (2006) found that work and family related factors are negatively
and significantly related to job satisfaction and family satisfaction. Hence, the current
study is aimed to fill a gap in the literature pertaining to the current work-life balance
issue among academics in the Malaysian higher education and its association with job
satisfaction.
2.4.4 Summary for the Literature of the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction
All in all, job satisfaction was originally studied as a predictor of behaviours

such as performance, absenteeism, and turnover (Brown, 2008: 34). More recently,
the interest has shifted toward identifying factors that influence or predict job
satisfaction. Based on the literature reviews and past research on several factors
associated as antecedents for job satisfaction, this study is opt to focus its
investigation on several specific antecedents of job satisfaction. They are
organisational factors (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent
rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and communication) as
identified by Spector (1997), alongside work-life balance and demographic
characteristics.
Based on the past research and work done on the relationships between several
factors opted as the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction, this
study is intended to investigate several selected satisfaction antecedents which
influence job satisfaction specifically among academics in the Malaysian public
higher education setting. In accordance with literature reviews done in the realm of
the relationships between several antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job
satisfaction, several research questions were of interest to the study as stated in
Section 2.6.
60
2.5 Consequence of Job Satisfaction: Intention to Leave
Intention to leave is positively related with turnover (Noor & Maad, 2008). According
to Futrell and Parasuraman (1984), the immediate precursor of actually quitting
appears to be intention to leave. They further argue that this is consistent with past
research on intention to leave, which contends that the individuals intention is the
most immediate motivational determinant of choice (Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984:
35). A similar contention is argued by Slattery and Selvarajan (2005) when they state
that a surrogate variable for employee turnover is ones propensity to leave (p58).
Numerous studies have supported this contention by presenting empirical
evidence of a strong relationship between intentions and withdrawal behaviour
(Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984). For instance, Price and Mueller (1981) conducted a
longitudinal study of a large sample of registered nurses in USA. The study intended
to estimate a causal model of turnover in organisations. Based on the report of the
study, intention to leave is among the strongest predictors of turnover.
Eberhardt et al.s (1995) study of registered nurses in private hospitals found
that the registered nurses' age was negatively related to intention to leave, albeit the
magnitude of the correlation was small. Marital status was positively related to nurses'
intention to leave, while married registered nurses reported lower likelihood of
quitting their jobs. Level of nursing education was not related to job satisfaction or to
intention to leave (Eberhardt et al., 1995). In the study, they also found that job
satisfaction was also negatively correlated with intention to leave.
In Roberts and Chonkos (1994) study, female academics were found to have a
significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male counterparts. However,
this finding is dissimilar to Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009) study among small and
medium enterprises workers in Australia where they found that there was no effect
based on different gender on the intention to leave.
Bartram, Casimir, Djurkovic, Leggat and Stantons (2012) study at a public
regional hospital in Australia found a low level of intention to leave the organisation
among 183 participated nurses. Dalession et al. (1986) argue that in future research,
more attention should be given to the direct and indirect influences of variables on
intention to leave as opposed to the actual act of turnover. This is because, from the
61
employers standpoint, intention to leave is maybe a more important variable than the
actual act of turnover and if the precursors to intention to leave are better understood,
the employer could possibly institute changes to affect this intention (Dalession et al.,
1986:261). However, once an employee has left, there is little the employer can do
except assume the expense of hiring and training another employee (Dalession et al.,
1986).
An individuals intention to leave their organisation has been included in
numerous attitudinal models (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). For instance, Futrell
and Parasuraman (1984) found that pay, promotion, work itself, co-workers, and
supervision were negatively correlated with intention to leave among salespeople in a
national pharmaceutical firm in the USA. According to Deery and Jago (2009),
research into the antecedents of labours intention to leave and turnover has,
traditionally, focused on the impact that job attitudes such as job satisfaction have on
an employees intention to leave.
In the Malaysian higher educational setting, retaining quality academic staff has
remained a concern in institutions of higher learning for a long time (Hassan &
Hashim, 2011; 82). According to Hassan and Hashim (2011) this can be reflected
through a study on academicss level of intention to leave the university. In this realm,
they conducted a study among academics in four public higher education institutions
in Malaysia, and found that academics had a low level of intention to leave the
universities.
Mustapha and Daud (2012) conducted a pilot study on the interrelationship
between intention to leave with perceived performance appraisal effectiveness and career
commitment,, among academics in a Malaysian higher educational institution. They
found that intention to leave is significantly related with its investigated antecedents
and recommended that further studies should be done focusing on the level of
intention to leave among academics in Malaysian universities.
Hence, evidenced by the findings of studies in the literature, several focal questions
are of interest to the current study pertaining to antecedents of job satisfaction, overall
job satisfaction and intention to leave as stated in Section 2.6.
62
2.6 Conceptual Framework for the Study
As stated by DeCuir-Gunby (2008:127), the theoretical or conceptual

framework reflects researchers personal stance toward the topics they are studying, a
stance based on personal history, experience, culture, and gender perspectives. Ones
theoretical perspective influences the types of research questions that are asked, the
way data are collected, and the manner in which data are interpreted (DeCuir-Gunby,
2008). The conceptual framework for this study is depicted in Figure 2.5.
The constructed conceptual framework explained all the major concepts,
constructs, relationships, variables and direction of the study as recommended by past
studies (see and DeCuir-Gunby, 2008; Konting, 1993; Sekaran, 2000; Talbot, 1992).
This framework is essential to the research process because it provides the foundation
that led to the creation of this studys research questions and the collection and
analysis of data (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).
There are three levels of variables included in the conceptual framework of the
current study, which are the antecedent variables of job satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to leave. In accordance with the current development of
public higher education in Malaysia, together with the past research evidenced in the
literature, this study includes eleven antecedent variables of job satisfaction which are
government and universities policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work,
communication, and work-life balance. Except government and universities policies
and support which have been discussed thoroughly in Chapter 1, studies that show
findings of each of these variables could be found in the preceding sub-sections.
These eleven variables are assumed to have positive relationships with overall
job satisfaction, where an increase of the value in these variables will increase the
value of overall job satisfaction. Intention to leave is included in the conceptual
framework as the selected outcome or consequence of overall job satisfaction among
academics in the Malaysian public higher education institutions. The conceptual
framework of the current study also draws together the relationships between the
antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. It is
assumed that all antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction have
negative relationships with intention to leave, where an increase of value in these
variables will decrease the value of intention to leave.
63
Antecedents of
Demographics Backgrounds:
Job Satisfaction Age, Gender, Tenure, Management Position
Government and
Universities Policies and
Support
-
Organisational
Factors +
Pay Overall Job - Intention to
Promotion Satisfaction Leave
Supervision
+
Fringe Benefits
Contingent Rewards
Operating Conditions +
Co-workers
Nature of Work
Communication -
Work -Life Balance
Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for the Study

Note: (+) represents positive relationship assumption, (-) represents negative relationship assumption
64
2.7 Summary of Research Questions
Based on the literature reviews of the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to leave, this section summarises all the questions for the
current study as mentioned in the preceding sections:
1. What are the levels of all job satisfaction antecedents among academics in
public higher education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be
answered in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and support),
Chapter 5 (organisational antecedents), Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents),
and Chapter 7 (work-life balance).
2. Are there any differences of satisfaction with antecedents of job satisfaction
based on gender, age, tenure, and management position? This question will be
answered in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and support),
Chapter 5 (organisational antecedents), Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents),
and Chapter 7 (work-life balance).
3. What is the level of overall job satisfaction among academics in public higher
education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be answered in Chapter
8.
4. What is the level of intention to leave among academics in public higher
education institutions in Malaysia? This question will be answered in Chapter
8.
5. Are there any differences of overall job satisfaction based on gender, age,
tenure, and management position? This question will be answered in Chapter
8.
6. Are there any differences of intention to leave based on gender, age, tenure,
and management position? This question will be answered in Chapter 8.
7. What are the relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall
job satisfaction, and intention to leave? This question will be answered in
Chapter 8.
8. Does overall job satisfaction mediate the relationships between each of the
antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave? This question will be
answered in Chapter 8. Furthermore, in order to answer Question 8, eleven
hypotheses were developed as follows:
65
a) The relationship between government and universities policy satisfaction
(GUPS) and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall
job satisfaction (OJS).
b) The relationship between pay and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially
mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
c) The relationship between promotion and intention to leave (ITL) will be
partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
d) The relationship between supervision and intention to leave (ITL) will be
e) The relationship between fringe benefits and intention to leave (ITL) will
be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
f) The relationship between contingent rewards and intention to leave (ITL)
will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
g) The relationship between operating conditions and intention to leave (ITL)
will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
h) The relationship between co-workers and intention to leave (ITL) will be
i) The relationship between nature of work and intention to leave (ITL) will
j) The relationship between communication and intention to leave (ITL) will
k) The relationship between work-life balance and intention to leave (ITL) be
9. Do demographic backgrounds fully moderate the relationship between overall
job satisfaction and intention to leave? This question will be answered in
Chapter 8. Moreover, with the purpose of answering Question 9, four
hypotheses were developed as follow:
a) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
fully moderated by personal demographic of age
b) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
fully moderated by personal demographic of gender
c) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
fully moderated by personal demographic of tenure
66
d) The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
fully moderated by personal demographic of management positions
2.8 Conclusion
This chapter has presented in-depth literature reviews of background, drivers and
challenges of higher education in Malaysia to help explain the emergence needs of
investigating the state of job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian higher
education institutions particularly in the public sector.
Subsequently, the chapter explained job satisfaction and together with its
antecedents and intention to leave as the consequence factor. This chapter extensively
discussed the antecedents of job satisfaction evidenced by literature reviews on
various past research, other than government and universities policies and support.
They were nine organisational variables (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,
contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and
communication) as proposed by Spector (1997), and work-life balance. The chapter
also elaborated demographic backgrounds as control variables for all of the other
investigated variables.
Intention to leave is argued as one of the main consequences of job
satisfaction. Hence, past research done on the construct of intention to leave as a pre-
cursor of actual leave were explored in this chapter. Also, based on the literature
reviews, the chapter constructed the conceptual framework for and the summary of
research questions of the study. Next, Chapter 3 outlines details of the research
paradigm and design, methods and instruments used in the study, assessment of
validity and reliability, ethical considerations, background of the qualitative study and
quantitative study, and measure of normality and reliability of the quantitative study.
67
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines details of the research paradigm and design, methods and
instruments used in the study, assessment of validity and reliability, ethical
considerations, background of the qualitative study and quantitative study, and
measure of normality and reliability of the quantitative study. The organisation of the
chapter is as depicted in Figure 3.1.
The implementation of the mixed methods research design used in this study is
extensively elaborated in Section 3.2, along with arguments on the differences of the
three major paradigms of research methods and reasons of why this study chose to
employ a sequential mixed methods design. The mixed methods research design
model is then broadly discussed in Section 3.3. It involves 5 main sequential
components which includes the purpose of the study, theoretical framework, research
questions, methods and validity. Flow of data collection methods employed in the
study is also described thoroughly in the section which encompasses a detailed
description of the ethical considerations, commencement of the qualitative study, pilot
study and quantitative study.
All instruments used in this study are elaborated on together with the rationale
for the implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data collected in the study, their
thematic and statistic analysis and software are elaborated in Section 3.4. Section 3.5
elaborates the background of the qualitative study, while background for the
quantitative study is detailed in Section 3.6. Findings of normality tests of variables
used in the quantitative study are presented in Section 3.7. It is followed by the
elaboration of measures of reliability of all scales used in the quantitative study in
Section 3.8. Section 3.9 explains non-response bias analysis and common method
variance (CMV) in the quantitative study. The conclusion of the chapter is provided in
Section 3.10.
68
Section Description
3.1 The section introduces the chapter and gives an overview
Introduction of the next sections.
3.2 The section discusses the mixed methods research design

Research Paradigm and Design and selection of a paradigm employed in the current
study.
3.3
The section describes the mixed methods research
Mixed Method Research Design
Model design model used in the current study.
3.4
The section details both qualitative and quantitative
Data Analysis data collected in the study, thematic and statistical
analysis implemented, and related software used for
data analysis in the current study.
3.5 The section details the background of the qualitative
Background of the Qualitative study.
Study
3.6 The section elaborates on the background of the

Background of the Quantitative quantitative study.
Study
3.7
Normality Tests Used in the The section presents findings of normality tests of
Quantitative Study variables used in the quantitative study.
3.8 The section elaborates on measures of reliability of scales

Measure of Reliability in the used in the quantitative study.
Quantitative Study
3.9
Non-response Bias Analysis and The section presents the explanation of non-response bias
Common Method Variance in analysis and common methods variance implemented in
the Quantitative Study the quantitative study.
3.10
Measure of Reliability in the The section concludes the chapter.
Quantitative Study
69
3.2 Research Paradigm and Design
Research methodology is defined by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:21) as:

...a broad approach to scientific inquiry specifying how research questions
should be asked and answered. This includes worldview considerations,
general preferences for designs, sampling logic, data collection and analytical
strategies, guidelines for making inferences, and the criteria for assessing and
improving quality.
In the social sciences, research methodology is taken to be a discipline whose

function is to examine the underlying rationale for the methods of research which
produce valid knowledge (Clough & Nutbrown, 2002: vii). Research methodology
aims to prescribe what are justifiable methods and procedures that ought to be used in
the generation and testing of valid knowledge (Clough & Nutbrown, 2002). DeCuir-
Gunby (2008) asserted that various qualitative and quantitative practices can be used
to generate and test the validity of knowledge.
Over the past two decades, much of the discussion in social science research
methods has focused on the distinction between qualitative research and quantitative
research (Morgan, 2007:30). The distinction between these two research approaches
has been debated broadly, alongside the emergence of an approach called mixed
method research which according to Morgan (2007) combines, integrates, or mixes
qualitative and quantitative methods.
The dominant and relatively unquestioned methodological orientation in the
social and behavioural sciences for much of the 20th century was the quantitative
orientation working within the positivist paradigm (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:4).
The tenet of positivism as pointed out by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:5) is:
The view that social research should adopt scientific method, that this method
is exemplified in the work of modern physicists, and that it consist of the
rigorous testing of hypothesis by means of data that take the form of
quantitative measurements.
70
Kiessling and Harvey (2005) argued that quantitative techniques focus on the
measuring of things that can be counted using predetermined categories which can be
treated as interval or ordinal data and subjected to statistical analysis. Kiessling and
Harvey (2005) further elucidated that predetermined categories are developed,
unavoidably so, through a researcher bias. This type of research assumes that the
predetermined categories also encompass the construct that the statistical analysis is
attempting to evaluate (Kiessling & Harvey, 2005:30). Quantitative methods may be
most simply and parsimoniously defined as the techniques associated with the
gathering, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of numerical information (Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2009). Quantitative methods include experiments and
questionnaires/surveys (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).
On the other hand, the use of qualitative research is especially significant in
relation to different cultures whose values, goals and morals vary significantly
(Kiessling & Harvey, 2005; Moran-Ellis, Alexander, Cronin, Dickinson, Fielding
Sleney & Thomas, 2006; Talbot, 1992). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:5) asserted that
qualitative methods may be defined as the techniques associated with the gathering,
analysing, interpreting, and presenting narrative information. Many qualitative
oriented researchers subscribe to a worldview known as constructivism and its
variants (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:6). Constructivists as opposed to positivists
believe that researchers individually and collectively construct the meaning of the
phenomena under investigation (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Qualitative research argued by Kiessling and Harvey (2005:31):
focuses on peoples experiences and the meanings they place on events,
processes and the environment of their normal social setting. Qualitative data
focuses on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings, so that we
have a starting handle on what real life is like
Qualitative or thematic data analysis is the analysis of narrative data using a

variety of inductive and iterative techniques, including categorical strategies or
contextualising strategies (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Qualitative methods include
conversation and interviews (individual/ personal/ focus groups), observations and
participation, and archival/documents (Anderson, 2004; DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).
Anderson (2004:141) points out although quantitative data can identify the
extent to which things are, or are not, occurring in organisations, it is less helpful in
71
answering the question why things are the way they are. As a means to understand the
related issues and causes, and to search for the value of precision in an investigation,
Konting (1993) argues that combining quantitative with qualitative methods is
essential. Kiessling and Harvey (2005) also emphasise that both quantitative and
qualitative research, performed in concert, will provide researchers with the evidence
needed to evoke an understanding within the global marketplace.
Essentially, as argued by Talbot (1992), by combining a variety of methods
different perspectives can be gained. The combination of more than one type of
research method in a single study is considered as a mixed methods research (DeCuir-
Gunby, 2008). Mixed methods has been defined as a type of research design in which
qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in types of questions, research
methods, data collection and analysis procedures, and/or inferences (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998). As stated by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:98), a mixed
methods approach obviously does not exist in isolation and therefore can be mixed
and matched. The philosophical orientation most often associated with mixed-
methods is pragmatism which Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) defined as:
a deconstructive paradigm that debunks concepts such as truth and
reality and focuses instead on what works as the truth regarding the
research questions under investigation. Pragmatism rejects the either/or
choices associated with the paradigm wars, advocates for the use of the mixed
methods in research, and acknowledges that the values of the researcher play a
large role in interpretation of results. (pp. 7-8).
Table 3.1 below summarises the dimensions and contrasts of the three
different perspectives of research methods. Based on the discussion and comparisons
of the three different types of research designs, this study employed a sequential
mixed-methods design. Sequential mixed design is a design in which at least two
strands occurs chronologically (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:153) either qualitative
data collection techniques followed by quantitative techniques or vice versa in a same
study. According to Teddli and Tashakkori (2009), the conclusions based on the
results of the first strand lead to the formulation of design components for the next
strand and the final inferences are based on the results of both strands of the study.
72
Table 3.1: Dimensions and contrasts of the three perspectives
of research methods
Dimension of Qualitative Mixed Methods Quantitative
Contrast
Methods Qualitative methods Mixed methods Quantitative methods
Paradigms Constructivism Pragmatism Positivism
Research questions Qualitative research Mixed methods Quantitative research
questions research questions questions; research
(qualitative plus hypotheses
quantitative)
Form of data Typically narrative Narrative plus numeric Typically numeric
Purpose of research (Often) exploratory Confirmatory plus (Often) confirmatory
plus confirmatory exploratory plus exploratory
Role of theory; logic Grounded theory; Both inductive and Rooted in theoretical
inductive logic deductive logic framework or theory
Typical designs Ethnographic Multi method designs, Correlational; survey;
research designs and such as parallel and experimental
others (case study) sequential
Sampling Mostly purposive Probability, purposive Mostly probability
and mixed
Data analysis Thematic strategies: Integration of thematic Statistical analyses:
categorical and and statistical; data descriptive and
contextualising conversion inferential
Validity Trustworthiness; Inference quality; Internal validity;
credibility; inference transferability external validity
transferability
There are several advantages in employing mixed methods design in the same
study, particularly a sequential mixed design. First, different methods can be used for
different purposes in a study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2000). Second, mixed
designs help researchers to answer exploratory and confirmatory questions
chronologically in a pre-specified order (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:153).
Specifically in utilising a sequential mixed design, the advantage is that it is less
complicated to be conducted by a solo investigator because it is easier to keep the
strands (quantitative and qualitative data collection) and the studies typically unfold in
73
a slower, more predictable manner (Jang, McDougall, Pollon, Herbert & Russell,
2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Mixed methods designs also enable triangulation to take place. Triangulation
as defined by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:27) is the combinations and comparisons
of multiple data sources, data collection and analysis procedures, research methods,
investigators, and inferences. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:99) defined
triangulation as the use of different data collection methods within the one study in
order to ensure that the data are telling you what you think they are telling you.
Remenyi, Williams, Money and Swartz (1998:142) explain that in business and
management research, the term triangulation refers to obtaining evidence from
multiple sources to ensure that a biased view is not being obtained from one
informant.
According to Talbot (1992), triangulation has several advantages. The two
main ones in this context being: first, if the differing perspectives illuminate different
aspects of the outcome, then a more holistic, less one-dimensional view can be
obtained; second, the degree of congruence in the results obtained by various methods
provides a useful cross-check on the reliability and validity of each individual method.
3.3 Mixed Methods Research Design Model
Figure 3.2 summarised the research design model adapted from DeCuir-Gunby (2008)
and Hosie (2003) which has been implemented in this study.
2. Theoretical 3. Research
/Conceptual Questions
Framework
1. Purpose
5. Validity 4. Methods
Figure 3.2: The research design model

(adapted from Decuir-Gunby (2008) and Hosie (2008))
74
3.3.1 Stage 1: Purpose of the Study
The first component of the model is to understand the purpose of the study
(DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Understanding the research purpose is essential because it
allows for the making of proper methodological decisions, which includes the
designing of research questions (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008:127). To become certain about
the research purpose, the study began with an extensive literature review which
highlighted key issues. The reason for the literature review is to ensure that no
important variable is ignored that has in the past been found to have had an impact on
the problem (Sekaran, 2000:60).
As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, this study first aims to explore the
antecedents of job satisfaction which consist of satisfaction with the government and
universities policies and support, satisfaction with the organisational factors and
satisfaction with work-life balance among academics in public higher education
institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aims to examine the interactions
between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction of the
academics. Thirdly, this study aims to investigate the consequences of overall job
satisfaction of academics towards their intention to leave the organisation. Fourthly,
this study also aims to investigate the mediation and moderation effects of several
specific variables in the study in the relationships with academics overall job
satisfaction.
3.3.2 Stage 2: Conceptual Framework
After the study had determined the research purpose, it moved forward to the
process of building the studys conceptual or theoretical framework. As stated by
DeCuir-Gunby (2008:127), the conceptual or theoretical framework reflects
researchers personal stance toward the topics they are studying, a stance based on
personal history, experience, culture, gender, and class perspectives. Ones theoretical
perspective influences the types of research questions that are asked, the way data are
collected, and the manner in which data are interpreted (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). The
conceptual framework for this study is as depicted in Figure 2.5 in Chapter 2.
75
The constructed conceptual framework explains all of the major concepts,
constructs, relationships, variables and direction of the study as recommended by past
studies (see Talbot, 1992; Konting, 1993; Sekaran, 2000; and DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).
Similarly as described by DeCuir-Gunby (2008), regardless of the representative
medium of the conceptual framework (either visually depicted or textually described),
this framework is essential to the research process. It is because it provides the
foundation that led to the creation of this studys research questions and the collection
and analysis of data.
3.3.3 Stage 3: Research Questions
Discussion of the factors associated with the antecedents of job satisfaction,

the state of job satisfaction and consequences of job satisfaction which have been
made extensively in Chapter Two contributed to the development of a theoretical
framework which is used as the model for the study. Then, after the theoretical
framework of the study was constructed, research questions were developed which led
to the specification of the topic and variables investigated in the study. Teddlie and
Tashakkori (2009) argued that research questions guide investigations and are
concerned with unknown aspects of a phenomenon of interest. Furthermore,
according to DeCuir-Gunby (2008) in any research study, the keys to designing the
appropriate methods are research questions which help guide the choice of methods.
In this mixed methods study, research questions were guided by the mixed
methods investigations and answered with information that is presented in both
narrative and numerical form as depicted in Table 3.1. Teddlie and Tashakkori
(2009:129) posited that the research question (or questions) works as a dual focal
point that liaises between what was known about the topic before the study and what
is learned about the topic during the study. Table 3.2 summarizes the research
questions and methodological design for this study.
76
Table 3.2: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study
Research Questions Research Data Analysis Related
Methods Chapters
1. What are the levels of all job Qualitative Thematic analysis:

satisfaction antecedents among categorising issues discussed
academics in public higher accordingly to each variable Chapter 4,
education institutions in Chapter 5,
Quantitative Statistical analysis:
Malaysia? Chapter 6, and
using frequencies, percentages,
and mean values Chapter 7
2. Are there any differences of Qualitative Thematic analysis:

satisfaction with antecedents of categorising issues discussed
job satisfaction based on accordingly to each variable Chapter 4,
gender, age, tenure, and Chapter 5,
management position? Quantitative Statistical analysis: Chapter 6, and
using t-test and ANOVA Chapter 7
3. What is the level of overall Quantitative Statistical analysis:

job satisfaction among using frequencies, percentages,
academics in public higher and mean values Chapter 8
education institutions in
Malaysia?
4. What is the level of intention Quantitative Statistical analysis:
to leave among academics in using frequencies, percentages,
public higher education and mean values Chapter 8
institutions in Malaysia?
5. Are there any differences of Quantitative Statistical analysis:
overall job satisfaction based using t-test and ANOVA Chapter 8
on gender, age, tenure, and
management position?

intention to leave based on using t-test and ANOVA Chapter 8
gender, age, tenure, and
7. What are the relationships Statistical analysis: Chapter 8

between the antecedents of job Quantitative using Pearsons correlations
satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to
leave?
(Continue)
77
Research Questions Research Data Analysis Related
Methods Chapters
8. Does overall job satisfaction Statistical analysis:
mediate the relationships Quantitative - Using multiple regression
between each of the analysis
antecedents of job satisfaction consisting of four regression Chapter 8
with intention to leave? equations in establishing
mediation
- Implementing Mackinnon et
al. (1998)s Distribution of
Product method = ZZ, to
assess for the significance of
mediation effect
9. Do demographic variables Statistical analysis:
moderate the relationship Quantitative - Using hierarchical regression
between overall job analysis by looking at the
satisfaction and intention to interaction term in establishing Chapter 8
leave? moderation
- Using Jose (1998)s special
graph calculation named to
draw interaction term between
different group of
demographic backgrounds
3.3.4 Stage 4: Methods
After the discussion and construction of the research questions was conducted,
the methodology of the study was planned. This study implemented a sequential
manner of collecting mixed methods data, which started with the first stage, a
qualitative methods study, and then followed by the second stage of the study, a
quantitative methods study. In the first stage, a qualitative study was conducted which
involved interviews with key players of the Malaysian Higher educational sector and
academics from public universities in order to get a feel for the key issues of job
satisfaction, its antecedents and the possible outcomes before embarking on the
second stage of the study.
78
Phase Procedure Product
Qualitative Data - Key-person Interviews - Text data (interview

Collection - Focus Group Interviews transcripts, documents)
- Translating & - Codes and themes

Qualitative Data
transcribing - Similar and different
Analysis
- Coding & thematic themes categories
analysis
- Within case & across
case theme development
-Using NVivo software
Connecting -Developing & - Selections of established

Qualitative and employing new & questionnaires
Quantitative Phases established scales - Development of variable
based on themes of satisfaction with
emerged in government and
qualitative analysis universities policies and
support
Pilot study - Getting alpha value for

- Piloting all scales scales reliability
Quantitative Data
Collection
Online Survey - Numeric data
- Using SurveyMonkey.com
as the online survey tool
- Data screening - Descriptive statistics,

Quantitative Data (univariate, multivariate) missing data, normality,
Analysis - Descriptive and homoscedasticity,
inferential analyses outliers
- Moderation and - t-test and ANOVA
mediation analyses - Pearson Correlations
-Using SPSS 17.0 software -Multiple Regression
Analysis
-Hierarchical Regression
Analysis
Integration of the - Interpretation and - Discussion

Qualitative and explanation of the - Implications
quantitative and qualitative - Future research
Quantitative Results
results
Figure 3.3: Visual model for mixed-methods sequential design procedures

79
Quantitative data collection in the second stage consisted of a pilot study of a
survey conducted through emails, and a self-administered quantitative study through a
web survey tool - SurveyMonkey. To explain the flow of each phase of data collection,
procedure, and product used in this study, a visual model for mixed-methods
sequential design procedures is designed following the steps proposed by Ivankova,
Creswell and Stick (2006). The model is depicted in Figure 3.3 above. It is important
to understand that the data is presented in the following chapters (Chapter 4 to
Chapter 8) not per the phased study (as per Figure 3.3), but in accordance with Table
2.2 thereby answering the research questions.
3.3.4.1 Ethical Considerations
Before each of the study phases commenced, an application to gain the

universitys approval to conduct those studies was made. The Faculty Human Ethics
Committee (FHEC) assessed the qualitative studys application as complying with the
National Health and Medical Research Councils National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with University guidelines on Ethics
Approval for Research with Human Subjects. They granted approvals, first, for the
qualitative study which was conducted between October and November 2007, and for
the pilot and quantitative studies which were conducted between November 2008 and
March 2009. These ethics approvals are included in Appendix A.
3.3.4.2 Qualitative Study
The qualitative study, conducted between October and November 2007 aimed
to investigate the context of job satisfaction of academics in the Malaysian public
higher education sector. It also aimed to investigate the significant determinants of job
satisfaction among those academics and its possible consequences or outcomes. The
study was conducted qualitatively via interview method. Spector (1997:5) asserts that
it is possible to get more extensive information in an interview and respondents can
elaborate the issues that they are discussing. Furthermore, the respondents have a
wider chance of generating their own antecedents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
based on their opinions, knowledge and experiences. The research took the form of
80
semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews with seventeen interviewees
comprised of sixteen academics from three public universities and a former Minister
of Higher Education Ministry of Malaysia.
Purposeful self-sampling and snowball sampling techniques were
implemented in this qualitative study. It was necessary in order to find participants
who are knowledgeable, are able to provide balanced perspectives, and will contribute
to the theoretical framework of the study (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Based on the steps
for this sampling technique proposed by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000:176)
and DeCuir-Gunby (2008:130), formal invitations were sent to several key-person and
academic staff in several Malaysian universities to take part in the study. The consent
had been given by all of the key-person and focus-group interviewees. The former
Minister of Higher Education for instance granted the permission to mention his name
in the thesis, but in accordance to the universitys Human Ethics requirements, the
Ministers name is kept to be anonymous and will be represented as the former
Minister of Higher Education throughout the whole thesis.
Two types of interviews were conducted for this study- key-person interviews
and focus-group interviews. Key-person interviews consisted of semi-structured
interviews with eight key players of higher education who are also academics except
one participant who is a former Minister of Higher Education. Besides the minister
the other key people being interviewed were a Deputy Vice Chancellor, a Director of
a universitys branch, a Deputy Director of Academic Affairs of a universitys branch,
a Dean, a Director of Public Relations Department of a public university cum senior
lecturer, and a Coordinator of Academic Program of a public universitys branch.
The key-person sample was considered essential in respect of their knowledge
of university and government policies, together with their overall role and knowledge
in coordinating academic programs and academic staffs affairs. Focus-group
interviews consisted of two semi-structured interviews with nine academics from two
public universities.
The interviews were semi-structured and conducted informally to ensure that
information given by the interviewees is in a personal capacity and does not represent
the views of their organisation. Different sets of questions were delivered to both key-
person and focus group. Key-persons were asked to give responses about their own
job satisfaction and their opinions about their academic staffs satisfaction with each
of the key factors, while focus group respondents were only asked to answer each
81
question that related to themselves. Both key-person and focus group interview
questions are included in Appendix B.
3.3.4.3 Quantitative Study
a. Pilot Study
According to van Teijlingen and Hundley (2001), the term pilot study is used
in two different ways in social science research. It can refer to so-called feasibility
studies which are small scale versions, or trial runs, or done in preparation for the
major study (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Baker (1994, in van Teijlingen &
Hundley, 2001) emphasises that a pilot study can also be the pre-testing or trying
out of a particular research instrument. The pilot study undertook in this research
was a quantitative based method.
Firstly, initial informal contacts were made with eight prominent academics in
Australian and Malaysian universities through emails to get their feedback on the
overall content and context of the instruments used in this study. A full set of the draft
questionnaire which contained all scales related to this study was emailed to them
along with an open ended question asking for their responses on improving the
goodness of the questionnaire. This method of Delphi technique was implemented to
get all the instruments revised by experts in the area of this study (refer to Grisham,
2009 and Howze & Dalrymple, 2004). All of these academics replied and gave
constructive comments and recommendations on the questionnaire. The researcher
then made a thorough revision based on each of these experts recommendation and
made several alterations to the questionnaire.
Secondly, a pilot study was conducted prior to the commencement of the
research survey. According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:203), a pilot study or
feasibility study is a stage of a project in which researcher or researchers collect a
small amount of data to test drive research procedures, identify problems in data
collection protocols, and set the stage for the actual study.
This pilot study is aimed to seek validity and reliability of all the instruments
used in the research survey. Snowball sampling technique has been used in this pilot
study. Following Saunders, Lewis and Thornhills (2000) steps for this snowball
sampling, these initial contacts had been asked to identify further cases among their
82
colleagues, and then ask these new cases to identify further new cases and so the
sample snowballs. Thirty eight out of 50 respondents had returned the questionnaire
along with their constructive comments and recommendations on how to improve the
face and content validity of the survey. Respondents in the pilot study were not
included in the actual quantitative study. Reliability of all scales was measured using
an internal consistency indicator, which is Cronbachs Alpha.
b. Online Survey
For practicality purposes, the quantitative study was conducted using an online
surveying tool. This type of survey method allows for elaborately designed
questionnaires with colour, graphics, audio features and sophisticated skip patterns
(Gunter, Nicholas, Huntington & Williams, 2002:232). Moreover, the software was
programmed automatically to collect and provide ongoing summaries of the data.
There is a growing body of evidence that online surveys produce higher
response quality than some offline methodologies, and online questioning results in
fewer items being omitted by respondents (Gunter et al., 2002:235). Online survey
may also be more effective in addressing sensitive issues and respondents seem to be
more willing to reveal information about their experiences with sensitive conditions
(Gunter et al., 2002). Evans and Mathur (2005) argued that if conducted properly,
online surveys have significant advantages over other formats.
This online study took place at Malaysian higher education institutions which
were willing to participate in the study. The Deputy Vice Chancellor and the Registrar
of all Malaysian public universities were contacted and invited to participate in the
study. Written consent for conducting the study was given by three publicly
government-funded universities in Malaysia.
The online survey hyperlink together with a cover letter, a survey
advertisement letter, and participation information sheet were informed and
disseminated by the administrator of every faculty, school or department in each
participating university to all academic staff members.
Four established measuring instruments and a newly constructed instrument
for the study were put into a set of online questionnaire on SurveyMonkey.com.
Together with these instruments was a demographic questionnaire which included
83
questions about respondents gender, age, tenure in present university, and
management position.
Each respondents completed questionnaire was automatically computed and
saved in the SurveyMonkey.com database. No one apart from the researcher had any
access to the returned online questionnaires which catered for the issue of
confidentiality.
c. Survey Instruments
The scales used to measure the variables for this study were adapted from the
literature review, developed from the findings of the preliminary interviews, or were
modified from existing scales developed by the past theorists and researchers. Five
established measuring instruments were chosen for this study which were Spectors
Job Satisfaction Survey (1997), a modified version of Job Descriptive Index by
Bartram, Stanton, Leggat, Casimir and Fraser (2007), a modified scale on Work and
Life Balance from Beehr et.als Work and Life Policies (1976), Meyer and Allens
original version of Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (1990), and Camman et
al.s Intent to Turnover Scale (1979). They were selected because of the extensive
usage of each of the instruments by other researchers. Moreover, the value of internal
consistency (alpha value) shown by each of the instruments was high which reflected
acceptable value of reliability. Also, based on the findings in the qualitative study, a
specific instrument was developed and included in the survey to measure the
government and university policies apart from some questions on demographics of the
respondents.
The online survey, together with a copy of participant information sheet,
contained the following six sections:
Section 1: Satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support

Section 2: Satisfaction with Organisational Factors (Spectors JSS)
Section 3: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance (Beehr et.als WLP)
Section 4: Overall Job Satisfaction (Bartram et al.s modified JDI)
Section 5: Intention to Leave (Camman et al.s ITS)
Section 6: Demographic Backgrounds questions.
84
All items (except for demographic questions in Section 6) were rated on a 5-
point Likert-type scale where 1= Disagree very much and 5=Agree very much. Some
items in these scales were negatively worded in order to maintain reliable answers
from respondents. These negatively worded questions were then reverse-coded before
doing the reliability checking. All instruments have been tested for validity and
reliability based on the pilot study. The instruments were put on an online survey
program (SurveyMonkey.com) along with a set of demographics questionnaire where
participants went to complete the survey through the Internet. Each respondents
completed survey was then automatically computed and saved in the
SurveyMonkey.Com Tool, and the results were downloaded into SPSS for
quantitative analysis.
Table 3.3 shows all instruments used in the quantitative study, the founder of
each instrument, several studies implementing each instrument, variables associated
and scales measured by each instrument, and alpha value based on the pilot study.
There have been two approaches to the study of job satisfaction. First, the
global approach treats job satisfaction as a single, overall feeling toward the job
(Spector, 1996:14). Second, the facet approach focuses on job facets or different
aspects of the job which allows for a more complete picture of ones job satisfaction
(Mohd Noor, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1997; Spector, 1996). Based on these approaches,
this study implemented both global and facet approaches to measure academics job
satisfaction.
85
Table 3.3: Instruments used in the quantitative study
Instrument Founder Several Studies Variables Scales Number of Cronbachs
Implementing Instrument Items Alpha in pilot
study
Government and Based on the - Satisfaction with Four constructed items 4 0.56
University Policies qualitative Universitys Policy from the qualitative study
and Support study (Independent) findings
(GUPS) (October-
November
2007)
Job Satisfaction Spector Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek & Satisfaction with Pay 5 079
Survey (JSS) (1997) Frings-Dresen (2003), Klein Organisational Promotion 4 0.82
(2007), Mohd Noor (2004), Antecedents Supervision 4 0.79
Murray (1999), Ranz, (Independent) Fringe Benefits 4 0.81
Stueve and Mcquistion Contingent Rewards 4 0.76
(2001) Operating Conditions 4 0.61
Co-workers 4 0.67
Nature of Work 4 0.75
Communication 4 0.72
Work and Life Beehr et al. Pare and Tremblay (2000) Work and Life Several adapted items from 6 0.81
Policies (1976) Balance Satisfaction Work and Life Policies
(Independent)
Modified version of Smith, Bartram, et al. (2007) Overall Job Overall Job Satisfaction 6 0.89
Job Descriptive Kendall & Satisfaction
Index (JDI) Hulin (1969) (Interdependent
variable)
Intent to Turnover Camman, Hung-Ryong Lee (2000), Intention to Leave Overall Intention to Leave 3 0.88
Scale Fichman, Jones (2002), Ogaard (Dependent)
Jenkins and (2006),
Klesh (1979)
86
a. Section 1: Satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support
(GUPS)
One of the major changes to public sector organisations, which in this study
are the participating public universities, has been the new focus on developing
mission statements and related organisational policies for every aspect of the
organisation including human resources' (Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2005:294). In the
Malaysian public university setting, universities from time to time strategized new
goals and objectives through policy changes based on the changes and development of
the socio-economic and political structure of the nation. As discussed in Chapter 1,
changes of policies in the public higher educational sector may have a significant
influence on academics job satisfaction. To investigate public university academics
satisfaction towards government and universities policies and support, this measure of
satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies and Support was developed.
Four items included in this measure are key issues that were based from the findings
in interviews with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study stage. The
measure has been piloted to obtain the reliability coefficient, and it is depicted in
Table 3.3.
b. Section 2: Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents (Spectors JSS)
Spectors Job Satisfaction Survey is used as a mean of investigating academics

satisfaction with several organisational antecedents. Various fields of studies have
used JSS to investigate multi-dimensional state of job satisfaction (see Klein, 2007;
Mohd Noor, 2004; Murray, 1999; Ranz, Stueve & Mcquistion, 2001; Saane, Sluiter,
Verbeek & Frings-Dresen, 2003).
This demonstrated that JSS is suitable to be employed across all categories of
occupation including academics in higher educational sector. JSS uses 36 items to
assess employee attitudes about the job and nine aspects of the job (Spector, 1997).
The nine facets or aspects proposed by Spector are pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers or colleagues, nature of
work, and communication. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the
results of the pilot study is depicted in Table 3.3.
87
c. Section 3: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance (Beehr et.als WLP)
To measure work-life balance, respondents were queried regarding their

perception on the organisations work and life policy. For this purpose, this study used
modified versions of the Work and Life Policy instrument proposed by Beehr, Walsh
and Taber (1976) and Pare, Tremblay and Lalonde (2000). These instruments were
not intended to represent a sound scale of work and life policy but rather to investigate
the level of work and life balance satisfaction which would be applicable for
academics in higher education. This instrument was comprised of six items which
were summed together to represent each respondents perception on their work-life
balance. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the results of the pilot
study is depicted in Table 3.3.
d. Section 4: Overall Job Satisfaction (Bartram et al.s modified JDI)
Job satisfaction measures traditionally used in organisational research were

uni-dimensional or a global approach which treats job satisfaction as a single, overall
feeling toward the job (Lok, 1997:172). This measure was derived from a modified
version of Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Bartram et al. (2007). It has 6
items which were summed together and assessed the global feeling of academics
about their job satisfaction. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the
results of the pilot study is depicted in Table 3.3.
e. Section 5: Intention to Leave (Camman et al.s ITS)
A review of the literature shows that there is a huge number of well-

established intention to leave measures (Eberhardt, Pooyan & Moser, 1995; Jones,
2002; Lee, 2000; Ogaard, 2006). This study used the modified version of Intent to
Turnover Scale (ITL) developed by Camman, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh (1979). It
has 3 items which assessed the overall response of ones intention to leave the
organisation. The reliability coefficient of the measure based on the results of the pilot
study is depicted in Table 3.3.
88
f. Section 6: Demographic Backgrounds Questions
The demographic section implemented in this study includes questions on

respondents gender, age, tenure in present university, and management position.
3.3.5 Stage 5: Validity and Trustworthiness
The final stage addressed in this study is validity and trustworthiness. As pointed out
by DeCuir-Gunby (2008:131) addressing issues of validity and trustworthiness is
essential to conducting mixed methods research. In this study, validity is addressed in
both qualitative and quantitative methods, where it examined aspects of truth value,
applicability, consistency, and neutrality (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).
3.3.5.1 Validity in Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, validity is often referred to as trustworthiness,

credibility, dependability, conformability, and understanding (DeCuir-Gunby, 2008;
Litwin, 1995; Remenyi et al., 1998). Hence, there are two ways implemented in this
study to address the qualitative aspects validity which are triangulation and member
checks as suggested by DeCuir-Gunby (2008).
The research data was triangulated which followed Decuir-Gunby (2008)
argument that this helped to reduce risk of bias and allowed a better assessment of the
phenomena. In this study, triangulation was accomplished by comparing the
consistency in responses from both the key-person and focus group interviews.
Then, the method of member checks was used. This involved several steps
where, first, all interviewees were given a copy of transcriptions of the interviews they
have participated. Secondly, they were asked to examine the interpretations of their
interviews and thirdly, give feedback for accuracy. According to DeCuir-Gunby
(2008:132), the use of member check helps to clear up any misconceptions and
misinterpretations that may be made by the researcher.
89
3.3.5.2 Validity in Quantitative Methods
According to Messick (1995, in DeCuir-Gunby, 2008) in quantitative research,

truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality are addressed in terms of
construct validity which is represented by the integration of test score meaning,
interpretation, and use.
In order to address validity in the quantitative aspect, this study followed
DeCuir-Gunby 's (2008) stages of construct validation:
1. The substantive stage explored, by using theories found in the literature and
empirical evidence of the key-person and focus groups interviews to define the
construct of the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction. Based on
the theories of job satisfaction, empirical findings of past studies, and the
outcomes in the qualitative interviews with key-persons and focus group
members, the current study developed the construct of the antecedents and
consequence of job satisfaction among academics and built the questionnaire
for the next stage of the study which was the online survey. These are
explained in Section 3.4.2.
2. The structural stage in the online survey examined the relationships between
the variables and constructs that were included in this study. This is
constituted using factorial analysis, descriptive statistics, item analysis,
reliability analysis, regression analysis and multivariate analysis. The findings
of these examinations are explained in Chapter 8.
3.4 Data Analysis
There are two types of data analysis conducted in the study- qualitative and
quantitative.
3.4.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is the analysis of various forms of narrative data,

including data stored in audio, video, and other formats (Anderson, 2004; Freebody,
2003; Gay & Diehl, 1992). These narrative data are usually prepared for analysis by
90
converting raw material into partially processed data, which are then subjected to a
particular analysis scheme (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:251). The qualitative analysis
in the study used in the qualitative study and is discussed extensively in Chapter 4,
Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7.
3.4.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
On the other hand, quantitative data analysis is the analysis of numeric data
using a variety of statistical techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:256). In the
current study, descriptive and inferential methods, together with the univariate
statistics were employed to answer research questions and hypotheses. The
quantitative analysis in the current study was undertaken in the pilot study and online
survey. These findings are discussed broadly in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6,
Chapter 7, and Chapter 8. As for the quantitative method, the data collected is
analysed by using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) e.g. descriptive,
correlations and multiple regression.
3.4.2.1 Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis such as frequency, percentage and mean are used to

explain the level of each of the variables included in the online study. To determine
the level of satisfaction with each of the antecedents of job satisfaction among
respondents, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave, frequencies and
percentages of responses were calculated and mean and standard deviation results of
satisfaction were analysed. The mean value of responses were computed and
categorised into 3 interval level of responses accordingly to the work of Akpofure
(2006), DeMato (2001), and Goff (2004). The interval level of responses were 1= low
(mean score of 1.00-2.33), 2= moderate (2.34-3.67) and 3= high (3.68-5.00).
The usage of mean comparison is to identify the demographic influence on the
responses. In this study, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test are used to test
whether there are significance differences on the level of satisfaction towards each
antecedent of satisfaction and overall job satisfaction and the level of intention to
leave between different demographic backgrounds of academics. Post-hoc tests were
91
conducted after ANOVA was run in order to compare the differences of all
investigated variables by different demographic backgrounds.
For the purpose of comparing findings based on demographic backgrounds,
following Ferrers (2010) work on analysing demographic differences, the
demographic variable was divided into several sub-groups. Gender was divided
between male and female, while management positions were divided between holding
management position and not holding any management position.
For the variable of age, following Ferrer (2010) and Oshagbemi (1997),
respondents were divided into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and
under; Group 2: 26 to 35; Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and
over). Respondents were also divided into four groups according to their tenure in the
current university (Group 1: 10 years and under; Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21
to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).
The correlation analysis is adopted to explain the relationships among the
antecedents of satisfaction and overall job satisfaction, the level of intention to leave
and several demographic backgrounds of academics. The correlation analysis was
implemented to answer Question 7 and presented in Chapter 8. The correlation
coefficients summarize the relationship displayed in a cross tabulation by representing
the statistical value which is called Pearsons r (Pallant, 2001). Correlation
coefficients e.g. Person product-moment provide the direction and the strength of the
linear relationship between two variables. The r can range from -1 to +1, the sign of a
positive correlation indicates as one variable increases, the other variable will increase
accordingly. On the other hand, a negative correlation indicates that as one variable
increases the other decreases (Pallant, 2001). The guide in the interpretation of the
relationship is known as Guildfords rule of thumb (Konting, 1993 and Mohd Noor,
2004), which is shown in Table 3.4.
Correlations obtained between two variables do not imply that there is a
cause-and- effect relationship. It merely indicates that as one variable varies, there is
some degree of systematic change in the other variable, but does not cause the other
(Mohd Noor, 2004; Pallant, 2001).
92
Table 3.4: Guildfords Rule of Thumb
R value Strength of Relationship
Less than 0.20 Almost negligible relationship
0.20 0.40 Low correlation, definite but small relationship
0.40 0.70 Moderate correlation, substantial relationship
0.70 0.90 High correlation, marked relationship
More than 0.90 Very high correlation, very dependable relationship
3.4.2.2 Mediation and Moderation Analysis
Multiple regression and hierarchical regression methods are also used to

measure the effect of mediator and moderators on the relationship between
independent and dependent variables of the study. In this study, job satisfaction is
implemented as a mediator variable between the antecedents of job satisfaction and
intention to leave. While demographic backgrounds of age, gender, tenure and
management position are implemented as the moderator variables between overall job
satisfaction and intention to leave. The analyses using multiple regression and
hierarchical regression were implemented in order to answer Question 8 and Question
9. The associated findings were presented in Chapter 8.
a. Mediation Analysis and Alternative Significance Tests Distribution of

Product Method
Mediation in its simplest form represents the addition of a third variable to the
relationship between an initial variable and an outcome variable, whereby the initial
variable causes the mediator, and the mediator variable causes the outcome variable
(Mackinnon, Fairchild & Fritz, 2007:595). The purpose of mediation analysis is to
examine whether an independent variable leads to another variable (the mediator),
which then transmits the effects of the independent variable to the dependent variable
(Baron & Kenny, 1986; Tharenou, Donohue & Cooper, 2007).
Thus, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is
mediated or transmitted by another variable (Tharenou et al., 2007). A variable may
93
be called a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relation between the
predictor (also called as the cause, initial or independent variable) and the criterion
(also called as the outcome or dependent variable) (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher &
Hayes, 2004).
Figure 3.4 gives a picture of the illustration of the mediation model employed
in the current study as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and described by
Mackinnon, Fairchild and Fritz (2007), Preacher and Hayes (2004) and Tharenou et
al. (2007).
Panel A
c
X Y
Panel B
M
a b
X c Y
Figure 3.4: The Mediation Model

(Source: Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Tharenou et al., 2008)
Panel A of Figure 3.4 represents the unmediated model of effect of some

proposed cause (variable X) on some outcome (variable Y) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
Panel B of Figure 3.4 represents the simplest form of mediation, the type that occurs
when one mediating variable (variable M) mediates the effect of X on Y (Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). The simple relationship between X and Y is often referred to as the
total effect of X on Y. Kenny and Baron (1986) denote the total effect c to distinguish
it from c, the direct effect of X on Y after controlling for M.
Mediation analyses were conducted using the technique outlined by Baron &
Kenny (1986) and Villanueva & Djurkovic (2009). The selection of the Baron and
94
Kennys mediation technique in this study was based on the sense that this study
focused on investigating simple relationships between three dimensions of variables
(the predictor, the mediator, and the output variables). This is the most common way
to test for mediation (Tharenou et al., 2007) other than the structural equation
modelling which is more suitable for testing more complex mediation models.
A multiple regression analysis consisting of four regression equations were
used in the study following Baron and Kenny (1986) and Villanueva and Djurkovics
(2009) causal steps in establishing mediation. First, to show that the initial variable is
significantly correlated with the outcome variable, it regresses the dependent variable
on the independent variable (represents by c in Figure 3.4). Second, to show that the
initial variable is significantly correlated with the mediator, it regresses the mediator
variable on the independent variable (represents by a in Figure 3.4). Third, to show
that the mediator affects the outcome variable, it regresses the dependent variable on
the mediator variable (represent by b in Figure 3.4). Fourth, to show that the initial
variable is significantly correlated with the outcome variable when the mediator
variable is controlled, it regresses the dependent variable on both the independent
variable and on the mediator (represents by c in Figure 3.4). Separate coefficients for
each equation were estimated and tested.
Tharenou et al. (2007) and Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) assert that
mediation effects occur when four conditions or steps are met: Condition 1- The
independent variable must significantly predict the dependent variable; Condition 2-
the independent variable must significantly predict the mediator variable; Condition 3
the mediator variable must significantly predict the dependent variable; and the
predictive utility of the independent variable must significantly be reduced no
different to zero (path c in Figure 3.4), in comparison to Condition 1, when the
independent variable and the mediator are used simultaneously to predict the
dependent variable.
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), MacKinnon, Fairchild and Fritz
(2007), and Mackinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West and Sheets (2002), the last step or
Condition 4, to establish that a mediator variable completely mediates the
relationship between predictor and outcome variables, the effect of predictor on
outcome controlling for mediator should be zero (c=0). If all four of the steps
explained above are met, then the data are consistent with the hypothesis that
95
mediator variable completely mediates the predictor-outcome relationship (Baron &
Kenny, 1986).
Conversely, if the first three steps conditions are met but the fourth step is
not, where the regression coefficient for the independent variable goes down in
magnitude but is still statistically significant, then partial mediation is indicated
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Tharenou et al., 2004). MacKinnon et al. (2002) conducted
a study to compare fourteen methods to test the statistical significance of the
intervening or mediating variable effect. This was based on the fact that Baron and
Kennys (1986) Causal Steps approach has low statistical power (Preacher & Hayes,
2004). MacKinnon et al. (2002) believe that the Causal Steps does not provide string
evidence of mediation, given lack of significance of the partial effect of moderator to
outcome variable unless the sample size is large. Furthermore, Preacher and Hayes
(2004) argue that the statistical significance of the difference between the total effect
(c) and the direct effect (c) of predictor variable on outcome variable is not formally
stated by Baron and Kenny as a requirement for mediation. Instead, Baron and
Kenny simply state that perfect mediation has occurred if direct effect (c) becomes
non-significant after controlling for mediator, so researchers have focused only on
that requirement (Preacher & Hayes, 2004:719). Some researchers emphasise that it
is not enough to show that the predictor-outcome relationship is smaller when the
mediator variable is added to the model, but rather a test for the significance of the
change is critical (Beaujean, 2008:430).
There are some alternatives to assess for the significance of a mediation effect
- to name some of them like Sobel First-order Solution, Aroian Second-order Exact
Solution and Goodman Unbiased Solution (Beaujean, 2008: MacKinnon et al., 2007;
Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Based on Mackinnon et al.s (2007) study to compare 14
different methods statistical performance, they concluded that one of the best
methods to test the significance of the intervening variable (mediator) effect is
MacKinnon et al.s (1998) Distribution of Product method (ZZ). Other methods
to test the significance of intervening variable effects have low power due to the test
statistic not really being normally distributed, inaccuracy of standard error values, and
so on (MacKinnon et al. 2002: 92-95).
The current study was implemented accordingly to Mackinnon et al.s (2002)
guide on using this method which involves the distribution of the product of two Z
96
statistics - one for the a parameter, , and another for the b parameter,
. and are the unstandardised regression coefficients for path a and b,
while Zand Z were the t scores for path a and path b in the mediation effect
model as shown in Figure 3.4 above.
If and are assumed to be normal, the ZZ term can be directly tested for
significance using critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the product of
two normal random variables, P = ZZto determine significance (MacKinnon et al.,
2002:90). The critical values P = ZZ can be found from MacKinnon et al. (2002).
For example, the critical value to test = 0 in the current study for the 0.05
significance level for the P = ZZ is 2.18. It means that any value in the intervening
relationship shown by t value of path a multiply with t value of path b which is equal
or more than P = 2.18 is significant. Accordingly, this is the evidence that the
mediation relationship between a cause or independent variable and an outcome or
dependent variable is significant (Beaujean, 2008: MacKinnon, Fairchild & Frits,
2007; and Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
b. Moderation Analysis
According to Eberhardt, Pooyan and Moser (1995), Frazier, Tix, and Barron
(2004), and Kenny (2009), a moderation analysis involves a moderator variable M as
a variable that alters the strength of the causal relationship between independent
variable, X and dependent variable, Y. For instance, satisfaction towards work-life
balance may reduce intention to leave the organisation more for women than for men,
and so we would say that gender (M) moderates the causal effect of satisfaction
towards work-life balance (X) on intention to leave (Y). This is also known as the
interaction effect (Frazier et al., 2004). Most moderator analysis measure the causal
relationship between X and Y by using a regression coefficient and a complete
moderation would occur in the case in which the causal effect of X on Y would go to
zero when M took on a particular value (Kenny, 2009).
There are three equations to be considered and compared to identify the
interaction or change effect of moderator variable on the relationships occur between
independent variables and dependent variable. The equation forms a Model of
Moderation using hierarchical regression equations as in Figure 3.5 below.
97
The coefficient of R2 value obtained from the statistical analysis is used to
determine whether the moderator effect is significant and estimates the moderated
relationship. If the changes in R2(R2) is statistically significant, then a significant
moderator effect is present (Frazier et al., 2004; Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black,
1998; Kenny, 2009). In other words, the overall job satisfaction impacts on the
relationship between independent variables, for instance satisfaction towards work-
life balance and intention to leave, when R2 value at the full model is significant.
Equation 1 (Original Model) = Y = a + b1 X + e
Equation 2 (Limited Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + e
Equation 3 (Full Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + d1XZ + e
Figure 3.5: Model of Moderation
where:
Y = The dependent variable (intention to leave)

X = The independent variable (antecedents of job
satisfaction)
Z = The moderator variable (overall job satisfaction)
XZ = The multiplier of the independent variable with the
moderator variable.
a = Constant Value for variable Y
b, c, and d = The regression coefficients for independent variable
e = Standard error of the estimate
Particularly, moderation analysis helps to answer the question of which

demographic backgrounds of age, gender, tenure, and managerial position moderate
the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave among
academics in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions?
98
Subsequently, four assumptions are developed separately as follow:
Assumption a: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to

leave is moderated by personal demographic of age
Assumption b: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is moderated by personal demographic of gender
Assumption c: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is moderated by personal demographic of tenure
Assumption d: The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is moderated by personal demographic of managerial
position
3.5 Background of the Qualitative Study
The qualitative study took the form of semi-structured interviews with academics
from three Malaysian public universities and a former Minister of Higher Education
of Malaysia in order to identify core implications of the Malaysian Government and
public universities policies on higher education, organisational factors, and work life
balance effects on academics job satisfaction.
Key-persons were selected using a purposive sampling method. These key
people had been approached personally by the researcher and through the consent
from their university. They have been asked to speak in a personal capacity and not on
behalf of their universities. The focus groups were selected mainly using a purposive
sampling method. However, in order to recruit more interviewees to join the study,
the snow ball sampling method was implemented.
Two types of interviews were conducted for this study comprising key-
informant (KI) interviews and focus-group (FG) interviews. Table 3.5 summarises the
demographic characteristics of the interviewees and Table 3.6 segregates the
interviewees according to their position in the organisation and gender.
Key-person interviews consisted of semi-structured interviews with eight key
informants. Seven of them are academics from 3 public universities A, B and C. The
participants are coded as KP1, KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, KP8, as references in this
study. Another participant, coded as KP4, was a former Minister of Higher Education
of Malaysia. Before he was involved in politics and appointed as a minister, he was an
99
academic with 17 years of lecturing experience. His participation in this qualitative
study is essential since he had once been at the forefront of the Malaysian higher
educational sector. Each interview lasted for one to one and a half hours. Interviews
with key people were considered essential in respect of their knowledge of university
and government policies, together with their overall experience, role and
responsibility in coordinating university academic programs and academic staffs
affair.
In regards with the focus-group interviews, the responses given by the
interviewees were based on their personal stands about each and every issue that has
been brought into the discussion. There was no occurrence of any influence by any of
the focus-group member towards the others in the group. Before each of the focus-
group interviews is executed, the researcher had carefully reminded the focus-group
interviewees that they are free to answer the questions given in the session that related
to themselves and respond in their own capacity.
100
Table 3.5: Demographic Characteristics of the Interviewees
Interview Respondent Gender Age Marital Academic University Lecturing Position In University/
Code Status Level Experience Government
(years)
Key-person KP1 Female 57 Married PHD A 27 Dean Of A Faculty cum
Professor
Key-person KP2 Male 52 Married PHD A 25 Deputy Vice Chancellor cum
Professor
Key-person KP3 Female 46 Married PHD A 10 Department Director cum
Senior Lecturer
Key-person KP4 Male 58 Married PHD - 17 Former Minister Of Higher
Education
Key-person KP5 Male 28 Single Bachelor C 2 Lecturer cum Head of
Department
Key-person KP6 Male 49 Married PHD B 23 University Branchs Provost
cum Assoc. Professor
Key-person KP7 Male 52 Married Master B 20 University Branchs Deputy
Provost cum Assoc. Professor
Key-person KP8 Female 47 Married Master B 21 Program Coordinator cum
Assoc. Professor
Focus Group 1 FG1-1 Male 34 Married Master A 3 Lecturer
Focus Group 1 FG1-2 Female 32 Married Master A 5 Lecturer
Focus Group 1 FG1-3 Male 33 Married Master A 3 Lecturer
Focus Group 1 FG1-4 Male 28 Single Bachelor A 1 Tutor
Focus Group 1 FG1-5 Female 34 Married Master A 6 Lecturer
Focus Group 1 FG1-6 Male 27 Single Bachelor A 3 Tutor
Focus Group 2 FG2-1 Male 26 Married Master C 1 Tutor
Focus Group 2 FG2-2 Male 29 Married Bachelor C 3 Lecturer
Focus Group 2 FG2-3 Female 32 Married Master C 1 Tutor
101
Focus group interviews consisted of two semi-structured interviews with two
groups of academics from two public universities. Focus Group 1 was comprised of
six academics with different personal characteristics and employment backgrounds
who work for public university A. Each of the participants is coded as FG1-1 to FG1-
6. Focus Group 1 session was conducted over two hours and 15 minutes. Focus Group
2 comprised of three academics with different personal characteristics and
employment background who work for public university C. Each of the participants in
this session coded as FG2-1 to FG2-3. It took about two hours for each session to be
completed.
Table 3.6: Interviewees position in the organisation and gender

Gender
No. Position
Male Female
1. Former Minister 1 -
2. Deputy Vice Chancellor 1 -
3. University Branch Campus Provost 1 -
4. Branch Campus Deputy Provost 1 -
5. Faculty Dean - 1
6. Department Director/Head of Department 1 1
7. Program Coordinator - 1
8. Lecturer 3 2
9. Tutor 3 1
Total 11 6
Based on the data in Table 3.6, there were eleven males and six females in this
study. Five of the males hold management positions in their universities, while six of
the males are academics without management position. In terms of females, three of
them hold management positions while the other three do not.
Both the key-person and focus group interviews were semi-structured and
conducted informally to ensure that information given by the interviewees is in their
personal capacity and not representative of their organisations. The structured
questions in the interviews were based on certain identified antecedents of job
102
satisfaction of academics in Malaysian higher education institutions. The
identification of possible antecedents was made through extensive library research
and discussed in Chapter two of the thesis. Different sets of questions were delivered
to both key-person and focus group (See Appendix A).
Table 3.7 below represents each of the dimensions of satisfaction spoke of and
discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the table, each
interviewees response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is represented
by X symbol. These dimensions arose from the literature review and are depicted in
the theoretical model in this chapter. No new dimensions other than these dimensions
of satisfaction mentioned by all key-person and focus group interview respondents.
However, it is clear from this summary table that there were varying priorities of
respondents with some antecedents being spoken of by many whilst others were rarely
referred to.
Based on the thematic analysis employed to analyse each interview with
respondents by using NVivo, two dominant categories of variation emerged. First,
respondents management position with, for example, the issue of promotion being
responded dominantly by key-informants who hold management position in their
universities. Conversely, issues of supervision and pay for instance, were spoken of
more so by academics without a managerial position compared to key-informants.
Second, gender differences appeared with some issues of interest to one group
although not for their counterpart. For instance, several issues regarding work-life
balance caught more interests among females than males.
. However, there were also several issues that were equally discussed by all
respondents crossing their categories. The data exploring these differences and
similarities is discussed in the next sections of this chapter.
103
Table 3.7: Dimensions of satisfaction of interviewed key-persons and focus groups in the qualitative study
Dimensions of Satisfaction Key-person Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2
1. Government & University KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG

Policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Funds for research and
development activities X X X X X X
- Support for academics to further

their studies X X X X X
- Policy on university-industry
partnership X X X X X X
-Internationalisation of public
universities
X X X X
2. Pay KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Feeling towards pay received
X X X X X X X X X X
3. Promotion KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Opportunity to get promoted
X X X X X
104
4.Supervision KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Fairness & consideration
X X X
- Management strategy &

leadership X X X X X X X X
- Consultation & freedom

X X X X X X X X
5. Fringe benefits KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
General opinions on fringe
benefits X X X X X X
6. Contingent rewards KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
Recognition
X X
7. Operating conditions KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Facilities at workplace
X X X X
- Uninterrupted working
conditions X X X X X X
- Work responsibilities
X X X X X X
105
8. Co-workers KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Cooperation among
colleagues X X X X X X X X X X X X
- Nature of healthy competition

X X
9. Nature of work KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- The job itself
X X X X X X X
- Students factor
X X X X X X X X X
-The nature of teaching &

research X X
X X
10. Communication KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Flow of communication
X
- Interpretation of communication
between academics & X
administration staff
11. Work-life balance KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
1. Working overtime and on
weekend X X X X X X
106
2. The importance of family
support X X X X X X X X
3. Impacts of work towards life or

vice versa X X X X X
107
3.6 Background of the Quantitative Study: Demographic Summary
Online surveys were sent to 3281 academic staff from three participating
public universities in Malaysia. A total of 1078 academic staff from the participating
public universities of Malaysia, represented by University A, University B and
University C (for the purpose of anonymity), responded in this study, representing a
total response rate of 35.7%. Based on the statistics drawn by the Ministry of Higher
Education of Malaysia in 2007, there were 1920 academics working with University
A, 797 academics working with University B, and 564 working with University C
(Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia 2009). Table 3.8 depicts segregation of
respondents based on each three participating universities. Of the 1078 respondents,
601 respondents or 55.8% of total survey participants work for University A.
Respondents from University B and University C were represented by a total of 268
(24.9%) and 209 (19.4%) respectively.
Table 3.8: Segregation of respondents based on each university

University Total Percentage Total Percentage Percentage of
Academic Staff of Population Respondents of Sample Sample from
Each University
University A 1920 58.5% 601 55.8% 31.3%
University B 797 24.3% 268 24.9% 33.6%
University C 564 17.2% 209 19.3% 37.1%
University
A+B+C 3281 100% 1078 100% -
108
Table 3.9 below summarises the overall demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the quantitative study (n=1078).
Table 3.9: Frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of respondents

(n=1078)
Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Age
25 & under 47 5.2
26-35 442 48.6
36-45 255 28.0
46-55 142 15.6
56 & over 24 2.6
Gender
Males 533 51.1
Females 510 48.9
Marital Status
Single 199 22.5
Married 667 75.4
Divorced 19 2.1
Highest Academic Qualification
Diploma 2 0.2
Bachelor Degree 52 5.9
Master Degree 550 62.1
Doctorate Degree 281 31.8
Lecturing Experience (years)
10 and under 671 74.5
11-20 155 17.2
21-30 64 7.1
31 and more 11 1.2
Tenure in Present University (years)
10 and under 723 80.2
11-20 147 16.3
21-30 29 3.2
31 and more 3 0.3
Academias Rank
Tutor 142 16.1
Teacher 18 2.0
Lecturer 448 50.7
Senior Lecturer 158 17.9
Associate Professor 83 9.4
Professor 34 3.9
Hold Management Position in the University
No 376 40.5
Yes 553 59.5
109
As indicated in Table 3.9, 48.6% between 26 and 35 years of age, 28%
between 36 and 45, 15.6% between 46 and 55, 5.2% were aged 25 and under, and
2.6% were 56 and above.
The data for gender showed that males and females were distributed almost
equally with males (N=533) being 2.2 per cent more than females (N=510). Married
respondents were the dominant respondents with 667 (75.4%) compared to 199
(22.5%) of single respondents and 19 (2.1%) of divorcees.
Regarding highest academic qualification, data in the table shows that 550 or
62.1% of the participating respondents hold Master Degrees, 281(31.8%) have
Doctorate Degrees, 52 (5.9%) with Bachelor Degrees, and only 2 respondents (.2%)
hold Diplomas.
The lecturing experience data reflects that academics who had worked for ten
years and less made up nearly 75% of the survey participants. This is followed by
those who had worked between eleven to 20 years (17.2%), between 21 to 30 years
(7.1%), and 31 years and more (1.2%). In the category of tenure in the universities
surveyed, academics who had worked for ten years and under were the dominant
participants in this study. This group represented 723 academics (80.2%). Those who
had worked between eleven to 20 years comprised 147 (16.3%), between 21 to 30
years comprised 29 (3.2%) and 3 (0.3%) respondents had worked for 31 years and
more.
Lecturer was the dominant category of academias rank which consisted of
448 respondents or more than 50% of the total sample. The least number of
respondents in this category were the Professor category which totalled 34 (3.9%).
There is almost a fairly distribution of results for respondents who hold management
position in their universities and who were not. A total of 553 (59.5%) of the
respondents answered that they hold management position in the university compared
to 376 (40.5%) who did not.
110
3.7 Findings of Normality Tests of Variables in the Quantitative Study
The assumptions of normality are a prerequisite for many inferential statistical

techniques (Coakes, Steed & Ong, 2010:37), as it is important for the results of
statistical tests to be accurate (Thanerou, Donohue & Cooper, 2007:200). According
to Pallant (2001:54), normality is used to describe a symmetrical, bell shaped curve,
with the greatest frequency of scores in the middle, and smaller frequency towards the
extremes.
There are a number of different ways to explore this assumption of normality
graphically as suggested by Coakes, Steed and Ong (2010), Pallant (2001), Saane et
al. (2003), and Tharenou, Donohue and Cooper (2007). This study implemented
several normality tests which include:
a. Skewness value
b. Kurtosis value
c. 5% trimmed mean value
d. Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic
e. Histograms
f. Normal probability plot
g. Detrended normal plot
h. Stem-and-leaf plot
i. Boxplot
Based on all normality tests conducted on all variables investigated in the

quantitative study using SPSS, there appeared to be significant variation in all
variables of demographic variables, government and university policy satisfaction,
organisational antecedents satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to leave, thus, this means that all of the investigated
variables were normally distributed and inferential statistical tests could be done to
test the hypotheses of the quantitative study.
111
3.8 Measures of Reliability
According to Spector (1997) and Pallant (2001), the widely accepted minimum
standard for internal consistency which is reflected by the Cronbachs alpha value is
0.70. Lambert and Paoline (2008:550) suggest that any index which had a Cronbachs
alpha value higher than 0.60 is generally viewed as acceptable and Tu, Plaisent,
Bernard and Maguiraga (2005:263) suggest that the alpha value of at least 0.60
proved reliable for the scale.
Table 3.10 below depicts measures of reliability for the original scales, scales
used in the pilot and in the online survey.
Table 3.10: Measures of reliability for all scales

Reliability
Instruments Original Pilot Online
Scale Study Survey
Variables
Government and Satisfaction with Government - 0.56 0.48
Universities Policies and and University Policies and
Support Satisfaction Support
Job Satisfaction Survey Pay Satisfaction 0.75 0.79 0.78
Promotion Satisfaction 0.73 0.82 0.67
Supervision Satisfaction 0.82 0.79 0.79
Fringe Benefits Satisfaction 0.73 0.81 0.75
Contingent Rewards 0.76 0.76 0.80
Satisfaction
Operating Conditions 0.62 0.61 0.71
Satisfaction
Co-Workers Satisfaction 0.60 0.67 0.68
Nature of Work Satisfaction 0.78 0.75 0.75
Communication Satisfaction 0.71 0.72 0.79
Work and Life Policies Work-Life Balance - 0.81 0.67
Satisfaction
Modified Job Satisfaction Overall Job Satisfaction 0.75 0.89 0.86
Index
Intent to Turnover Scale Intention to Leave 0.81 0.88 0.93
When item analysis was performed in the online survey (compared to the
original and pilot study scales) using coefficient correlation analysis in SPSS 17.0, all
the scales except GUPS had a satisfactory Cronbachs alpha values according to the
acceptable value for reliability level of scale, with alpha values ranging between. 0.67
and 0.93. As GUPS is a newly constructed scale in this study and never been tested in
112
any other study, it was of interest for the researcher to consider it to be retained in the
study.
Two reasons lie behind the consideration for retaining GUPS as a significant
variable in the study. First, the variable had been extensively argued in the qualitative
study with key-informants and focus groups as an influential aspect in predicting
academics job satisfaction. Second, Brown (2008) and Nunnaly and Berstein (1994)
argued and set the criteria of including all scales with more than 0.3 item total
correlation of Cronbachs alpha value to be accepted as a minimum accepted level of
reliability. The values of Cronbachs Alpha for GUPS in both the pilot study and
online survey were 0.56 and 0.48, but the correlation between items representing
GUPS were more than the value of 0.3 and this was considered as a fairly strong value
to be accepted as reliable. Thus, all variables in the current online study were
respectively reliable and included for further statistical tests and analysis.
3.9 Non-response Bias Analysis and Common Method Variance in the

Quantitative Study
As in many survey studies, there are two important issues that need to be identified
before proceeding with the quantitative analysis. These are non-response bias and
common method variance (CMV). According to Lindner, Murphy and Briers
(2001:43), non-response bias is one of the possible sources of error in sample survey
research. Indeed, non-response bias is a major challenge facing studies using surveys
as a method of data collection (Atif, Richards & Bilgin, 2012:1) including the current
study. A general view expressed by researchers using survey instruments is that when
the survey response rate is considerably high, there is no need to worry about the
probability of non-response bias (Lindner et al., 2001: 45). However, statisticians and
other experts in the survey method recommend that researchers should conduct a non-
response bias analysis, regardless of how high or how low the response rate is
achieved (see Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Meade, Watson & Kroustalis, 2007; Atif
et al., 2012).
The current study has implemented two methods to estimate non-response bias
according to the suggestions of Armstrong and Overton (1977), Rogelberg and
Stanton (2007) and Atif et al. (2012). These methods are:
113
a. Follow up approach. This has been done by resurvey non-respondents through an
email sent to them three times after the first invitation to participate in the first
email. The first email was sent to all academic staff members in the three
participating universities in early October, 2008. The consecutive follow up
emails were sent once after a month for three times in November, 2008, January,
2009 and February, 2009. This was done with the assistance of the administrator
of every faculty, school or department in each participating university.
b. Wave analysis. The technique is also called as the Linear Extrapolation Method
(Armstrong & Overton, 1997). In accordance to the work of Atif et al. (2012), the
extrapolation method used in the current study is based on the assumption that
respondents contacted through the online survey who respond less readily or
answering later are more like non-respondents. Wave refers to the response
generated by a stimulus where in the current study the stimulus was the follow-up
emails.
For the current study, wave analysis was implemented by comparing late
respondents to early respondents in the database used in the study (via
SurveyMonkey online survey tool). Persons who respond in the latest wave (after
the quantitative study ended on March 31, 2009) are assumed to have responded
because of the increased stimulus and are expected to be similar to the non-
respondents. The total for non-respondents category was 29 respondents who
responded to the online survey after March 31, 2009. Table 3.11 below shows the
three waves of invitations to participate in the current study and cumulative
responses.
The findings of the methods used in analysing non-response bias proved that
the degree of non-response had been minimised in the current study. Following the
suggestions of the past research studies (see Rogelberg and Stanton, 2007; Atif et al.,
2012), the current study considered several other ways of maximising the
participation of the targeted respondents in the three participated public universities in
Malaysia. For instance, the current study paid special attention to online survey
distribution plan, communication plan (emails with the key-persons who helped in
114
distributing the survey online address to targeted respondents, pre-notification letter,
ethical issues personalised cover letter, follow up reminders, and thank you notes),
and questionnaire design (simple survey formats and length of questionnaire).
Table 3.11: The Waves of Participations Invitations and Cumulative Responses
Waves Number of Cumulative Category of

responses Response Respondents
Initial Responses 294 394
Reminder 1 368 762

(November 2008)
Respondents
Reminder 2 201 963
(January 2009)
Reminder 3 115 1078

(February 2009)
April 2009 37 - Non-Respondents
In regards to the issue of common method variance analysis, this is refers to

the investigation of the amount of spurious covariance shared among variables
because of the common method used in collecting data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee
& Podsakoff, 2003). According to Meade et al. (2007), there are four major types of
CMV which include sources due to having a common rater, item characteristic
effects, item context effects, and measurement context effects.
There are four alternative approaches to assessing CMV, which are traditional
multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) procedure, confirmatory factor analysis based
MTMM technique, Harmans single-factor test, and marker-variable technique (see
Meade et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The current study implemented Harmans
single-factor test in order to investigate CMV. According to the findings after several
steps taken in this particular test, it was found that there was no such issue of CMV
and the occurrence of biases, since the first factor explained the majority of the
variance in the variables used in the current study which consist of the antecedents
variables of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave the
organisation.
115
3.10 Conclusion
This chapter outlined the research methodology and mixed method designs that are
used in this thesis. The implementation of the mixed methods research was elaborated
in Section 3.2. This section also argued the differences of the major paradigms of
research methods, and elaborated reasons of why this study chose to employ a
sequential mixed methods design. In Section 3.3, the mixed methods research design
model which includes purpose of the study, theoretical framework, research questions,
methods and validity was discussed. The direction of relationships among variables in
this study is depicted through the explanation of research questions and
methodological design. Qualitative and quantitative data collected in the study, their
thematic and statistical analysis and software used were elaborated in Section 3.4.
This chapter has also elaborated backgrounds of qualitative study through the
interviews in Section 3.5 and quantitative study through the online survey in Section
3.6. It was followed by the explanations on the findings of demographic analysis,
normality tests, measures of reliability for all scales used in the quantitative study, and
non-response bias analysis and common method variance in the quantitative study.
Next, Chapter 4 will discuss the satisfaction with the government and
universities policies and support. Chapter 5 and 6 will discuss the satisfaction with
organisational factors. Chapter 7 on work-life balance satisfaction exploring the
findings of the qualitative study and quantitative study.
116
Chapter 4
SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITIES POLICIES

AND SUPPORT
4.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the satisfaction with Government and Universities Policies
and Support (GUPS) based on interviews with key-persons and focus groups from
three public universities in November and December 2007. Furthermore, this chapter
details the findings of the quantitative study in relation to GUPS completed by
academics from three participating universities between November 2008 and March
2009. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 4.1 below.
Section Description
4.1 The section introduces the chapter and gives an

Introduction overview of the next sections.
4.2 The section discusses the findings in the qualitative

Qualitative Study Findings: study specifically on general satisfaction with
General Satisfaction GUPS.
The section describes the qualitative study findings

4.3
on several issues initiated related to satisfaction with
Qualitative Study Findings:
GUPS.
Key issues pertaining to GUPS
4.4 The section elaborates the findings of the

Quantitative Study Findings quantitative study.
4.5 The section summarizes key findings from both the

Conclusion qualitative and quantitative study and concludes the
chapter.
117
The aims for the first part of this chapter were first, to understand respondents
impressions and satisfactions of key issues in the area of Government and Universities
Policies and Support through a qualitative method and then to investigate differences
based on respondents demographic backgrounds.
The aims of the second part which was conducted through a quantitative
method of data collection were to investigate a larger number of respondents. The
study also aims to investigate differences in satisfaction with GUPS among academics
by different type of demographic backgrounds.
GUPS is an antecedent of academics job satisfaction and the study focused
and explored the antecedent. In the next chapters, the study expands on this and tests
the relationship between satisfaction with GUPS and overall job satisfaction.
The chapter is structured into three main sections. First, the general feelings of
satisfaction with GUPS among interview respondents are detailed. Secondly, all
issues discussed by interview respondents regarding satisfaction with GUPS are
elaborated. Section Three presents descriptive findings of the quantitative study in
regards to academics satisfaction towards GUPS.
4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with GUPS
This section describes the findings in the qualitative study pertaining to the general
satisfaction of academics in regard to GUPS (GUPS). In each of the interview
sessions, a question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction
towards GUPS. In the interview with the former Minister of Higher Education (KP4),
this question was not asked as he can not speak on the capacity as an academic. These
answers were coded based in whether they spoke of these in terms of satisfaction;
dissatisfaction; neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; or no response was given or it was
unclear. Table 4.1 presents this data.
118
Table 4.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with GUPS
Interview Respondents Responses
KP1 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

KP3 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP6 Dissatisfied
KP8 Dissatisfied
FG1-1 Satisfied
FG1-2 Satisfied
Focus Group FG1-3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
1 FG1-4 Satisfied
FG1-5 Satisfied
FG1-6 Satisfied
FG2-1 Satisfied
Focus Group
FG2-2 Satisfied
2
FG2-3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Based on the findings in Table 4.1, after excluding KP4, nine of the interview
respondents responded that they are satisfied with GUPS. Two of the respondents
mentioned that they are dissatisfied, and five of them said that they are neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Furthermore, all interview respondents except a tutor (FG2-3) initiated
discussions on their general state of satisfaction pertaining to GUPS.
4.2.1 Satisfied Respondents
As elaborated broadly in Chapter One, government support included financial

support to cultivate research and development activities in universities, incentives to
cultivate collaborations between the university and the industry, career development
support for academics, and scholarships for academics to further study (see Din, 2001;
Ali, 2003; Mohd Noor, 2007b). Such support had previously been found to
significantly and substantially impact on universities and its academic staff (Shen,
Yang, Shiau & Wang, 2006; Mohd Noor, 2007b). Based on the interviews with key-
person and focus groups, these support offered and policies constituted by the
119
government and universities were perceived by most of the responded interviewees as
positive drivers of job satisfaction for academics.
Four key-persons, who are in universitys management level, mentioned their
general satisfaction with government and universitys support (KP2, KP3, KP5, and
KP6). As a department director (KP3) put it:
I am satisfied with the support and policy of the government and the
university The government and universitys policy is a mechanism of total
support towards the development of the university and its human resources. I
believe that these supports are purely aimed to generate not only the well-
being of the university, its academic staff, or whatever, but also to nurture that
well-being to be benefited by the public generally... These supports have
important impacts towards academic sector and researches (KP3 - Key-person
Interview, 26 October 2007).
A head of department (KP5) pointed out that such support was perceived as one of the
important drivers towards job satisfaction, and he explained it in terms of academics
career:
it could be a motivation or driver for tutors and lecturers in my university
to further their study at ease. For me, this kind of support given by the
government and university is one of the factors that made us really satisfied
with our career as an academic (KP5- Key-person Interviews, 1 November
2007).
From the perspective of the operational level, seven academics in the focus
group interviews (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG1-6, FG2-1, and FG2-2) also
mentioned their general satisfaction with the government and universitys support.
Their satisfactions are best described by a tutor (FG1-6) and a lecturer (FG2-2):
For me these developments really influence academics job satisfaction I
believe that every single policy, trend or new development structured by the
government and university is able to spark our work motivation, improve the
quality of our work, and could help to produce quality students it really
helps academics to feel satisfied with their job (FG1-6 Focus Group
120
these (support) are aimed to create a knowledgeable society and it
strengthens the governments mission to be a fully developed country in these
few years. I am happy with the developments because the government
solemnly aimed to upgrade the quality of higher education, and specifically
me as an academic (FG2-2 - Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
4.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents
Even though the majority of the interview respondents argued that they were
generally satisfied with GUPS, there were also some respondents who brought up
their dissatisfaction in the interviews. Although none expressly stated they were
overall dissatisfied, there were certain statements that reflected dissatisfactions with
some aspects of this part of their working life.
For instance, a female key-person of a university (KP8) said: Without enough
money support, academics cannot move ahead, they will lose their motivation, and
without motivation there will be no job satisfaction (KP8 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
Another respondent, a provost of a public university branch campus (KP6),
highlighted his dissatisfaction with the government policy specifically R&D funds
granted by the government for his university. He argued that his university had
received a smaller amount of R&D grant compared to several other public universities
and this restricted his academic staff members to initiate a quality research and
development programs.
These were several general dissatisfactions pointed out by some of the
interview respondents. It shows that GUPS were of importance and should be
implemented carefully since it could affect not only academics job satisfaction, but
also other attitudinal outcomes such as commitment, work stress, or intention to leave.
121
4.3 Qualitative Study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Satisfaction with GUPS
Apart from their general satisfaction and dissatisfaction with GUPS, the interview
respondents also raised and initiated discussions on several important specific issues
that impacted on their satisfaction with GUPS.
Table 4.2 represents each of the issues of satisfaction with GUPS spoken of
and discussed by interviewed key-persons and focus groups. In the table, each
interviewees response towards all topics of the discussion in the interviews is
represented by X symbol. These issues were segregated based on keywords and key
points of satisfaction towards GUPS.
122
Table 4.2: Academics satisfaction with government and university policies in the qualitative study
Antecedent of Satisfaction Key-person Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2
Government & University KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG

Policies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
1. Funds for research and
X X X X X X
development activities
2. Support for academics to
X X X X X
further their studies
3. Policy on university-industry
X X X X X X
partnership
4. Internationalisation of public
X X X X
universities
Note: X represents response given by interview respondents
123
Four major issues were spoken of by the interview respondents in key-person
interviews and focus group interviews. As shown in Table 4.2, the issues were funds
for research and development activities, support for academics to further their studies,
policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of public
universities.
There were several key-points revealed from Table 4.2 based on the responses
given by key-persons and focus group members. As we can see, the issues of funds
for R&D activities and support for academics to further their studies were spoken of
mostly by focus group members who were academics in the operational level of the
universities. Four academics in focus groups mentioned and discussed both issues
respectively. Only two key-persons talked about funds for R&D, while support for
academics to further their study caught the attention of one key-person only.
On the other hand, key-persons who were at the university management level,
had spoken more so on the issues of policy on university-industry partnership and
internationalisation of public universities compared to the academics in focus group
interviews.
The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on each
issue and highlights key information used to build survey questions and hypotheses
specifically on the satisfaction with GUPS.
4.3.1 Funds for research and development activities
Research and development (R&D) of universities is one of the main priorities

of the Ministry of Higher Education (Mohamed, 2006). A lecturer (FG1-5 Focus
Group Interview, 26 October 2007) argued that R&D is a very important component
in education because without R&D, academics could not develop in the educational
sector and it is hard for them to compete with others (internationally). She is
confident that monetary support provided by the government for R&D activities will
be a force of motivation for academics.
As argued in Chapter 1, with a strong monetary and infrastructure support by
the government, universities are pursuing a more dynamic role in R&D programs
across various fields of study. The funds provided by the government for R&D
activities in universities are welcomed by respondents in this qualitative study and
124
most of the interview respondents who spoke on this issue tended to mention their
satisfaction (KP3, FG1-2, FG1-4, and FG1-6). Government funds for R&D was
argued by a department director (KP3) to have substantial positive impacts toward the
higher educational sector and also as a factor that contributed to academics
development in their career and job satisfaction:
For example a few months back, our Ministry of Higher Education had
organised an international exhibition and competition on R&D which was
participated by universities and academics from all over the world. The
participation of the program was opened to all local educational institutions
and academics too. The Ministry (of Higher Education) had funded most of
the local participants, and this was great! It was a good platform for academics
to share their research and R&D products internationally. I am happy with the
support provided by the government through this program (KP3 Key-person
Consequently, it is not simply putting money into R&D, but how it is used in
developing new knowledge that is specific to the Malaysian context and that can be
translated into good teaching practice that is key. This is evidenced by the satisfaction
delivered by academics who work in the operational level in the universities. For
example, respondent FG1-4 argued:
My research team managed to finish our short-term research a couple of weeks
ago. The grant given by the university was adequate to our needs in the
research program. I am so happy to be given the opportunity to join the
research. Its not because of the amount (of research grant we got), but more
the experience I gained through the process of doing the research... I gained a
lot of positive things which I could share it with my students then (FG1-4:
Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
Nevertheless, a provost of a public university branch campus (KP6)

accentuated his dissatisfaction with the issue of R&D funds given by the government
for his university. He complained about the inequitable distribution of funds for R&D
amongst public universities. He said:
125
When there are enough funds, lecturers will have better chances of conducting
research. But, the reality is not like that. Funds are not equally allocated for
each university. The government gives more funds for the established research
universities such as UPM, UKM, UM and USM. The balance of those funds is
then being disseminated among other universitiesFor my university, the
allocated funds are small, and we still need to divide this small number of
funds between all branches. In my branch, the management tries to divide the
funds given as equal as we can to lecturers who want to conduct any research
(KP6 Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
This is similar to the issue presented in the preceding section, where it was
questioned about different practices of universities across the sector. Furthermore, the
policy and practices of the Ministry of Higher Education in allocating support and
research grants to certain big and well-established public universities were
questioned by the other public universities, as it was seen to broaden the quality gaps
between those big universities and the other universities (Mohd Noor, 2007b). This
was perceived by KP6 as a potential trigger to academics dissatisfaction who work in
the non-established universities because of the smaller amount of research grant they
could apply for.
As a conclusion, based on the discussion among the interview respondents,
issue of funds for R&D was a pertinent one that potentially influences academics
satisfaction.
4.3.2 Support for academics to further their studies
Five interview respondents (KP5, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-6, FG2-1) mentioned

that they were satisfied with the support given by the government and their
universities, in particular support for them to further their studies. It was perceived by
a lecturer (FG1-1: Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007) that this is a golden
opportunity and was a special benefit granted to him (and the universitys academic
staff). He further elaborated that in private universities there are no opportunities to
upgrade academics career paths, academic qualifications, and skills.
In a related sense, a tutor (FG1-6) compared his opportunities with the
difficulties faced by his academic colleagues in private universities:
126
I am satisfied with the opportunity and scholarship given to me to further my
studyIn a public university (like his university), the opportunity given to
academic staff to further study is wider compared to any private universities.
Based on my conversations with several academic colleagues from private
universities, they have no chance to further their studies. In some cases, the
universities (private universities) do not provide any monetary support for
their academics to further studies. They need to use their own pocket money if
they want to (further studies) (FG1-6 Focus Group Interview, 26 October
2007).
The arguments of FG1-6 reflect that some of the well-established public

universities and most of the private higher educational institutions have a very strict
policy on sending academics to further studies. Academics in the well-established
public universities need to go through a very stringent process of getting a place to
further their studies because their universities wanted to spend their monetary funds
only for their most capable academics which in turn will benefit the university.
On the other hand, as others have found (Din, 2001), there were very scarce
chances for academics in private higher educational institutions to further their studies
because most of the institutions have no specific budget for the needs of academic
development.
4.3.3 Policy on university-industry partnership
Collaboration between higher education and industry is perceived as beneficial

to the universities in Malaysia (Mohd Noor, 2007a; Utusan Malaysia, 2007). The
former Minister of Higher Education, Mustapha Mohamed believed effective
collaborations would help universities ensure that curriculum and research are abreast
of current needs and to develop knowledge workers needed by industry (Utusan
Malaysia, 2007). The government has initiated such collaborations in order to develop
the higher educational sector, provide commercial opportunities and job opportunities
for graduates, with the possibility of transferring high-end technologies, expertise and
development from the industries to the universities.
A former Minister of Higher Education of Malaysia (KP4) stressed the
importance of linkages between academics, universities, private sectors and the
127
industries and potential benefits to all parties in terms of research and development
(R&D):
The Ministry (of higher education) and universities are very serious in
nurturing and producing a lot of research and development outcomes and then
commercialising these outcomes through the industry.we must have strong
linkages among academics, universities, industry and private sector (KP4
Key-person Interview, 28 October 2010).
So, picking up the R&D theme of the previous section, now we see that R&D linked
to commercialisation is also key to Malaysian development especially in the public
higher educational sector.
In regards to job satisfaction, the dean of a faculty (KP1) believed that

academics will gain benefits through good relationships between universities and
industries. She argued:
Lecturers also benefited from this university-industrial relationship in terms of
opportunities to expand their academic and industrial experience and numbers
of research and development (R&D) projects done in their core academic area.
This will be very significant to their job satisfaction (KP1 Key-person
The head of department of a university (KP3) was also satisfied with the present
linkages of university-industry which have also benefited university students:
From the aspect of collective relationship between lecturers, university and
industries, I would say that all local universities really want to nurture this
kind of relationship in order to seek out solutions for assisting graduates who
are hard to find jobs in industries (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26 October
2007).
She further argued that one of the benefits is we could match our students
with the right workplaces through their practical training in several industries (KP3
128
However, it is interesting here that these key-persons are mostly talking of
how these developments benefit the organisation, the graduates, and the industries
rather than talking about this in terms of their own or academics job satisfaction.
On the other hand, the government needs to be aware of the negative

consequences of the policy of nurturing the university-industrial relationship on
academics especially their satisfaction. Too much pressure on academic staff to
uphold the effort of university-industry partnership tends to influence their work
attitudes including their job satisfaction. This is argued by a lecturer (FG1-3):
If the government want academics to get involved and collaborate with
industry, an analysis needs to be conducted first to seek out benefits and
importance for us the academics. If they could list out the benefits, it will be
fine with us (academics), there is no reason why we should refuse to
collaborate with the industry (FG1-3, Focus Group Interview, 26 October
2007).
The lecturer (FG1-3) further asserted that any new policy should be carefully
implemented and not impact on academics heavy teaching roles:
they (the government and the university) must confirm that we (academics)
are not stressed by this new policy we still need to teach and carry out a lot
of responsibilities in the university. Make sure that this (new policy) will not
have any negative consequences on our job satisfaction (FG1-3, Focus Group
The same intonation of response was given by a head of department (KP5)

about the potential of drawbacks from the implementation of university-industry
partnership policy on academics:
Regarding to the involvement of lecturers in industries, we know that
academics have in-depth and vast knowledge. Why do they not share it with
industries and the public? In the same time, we need to be concerned with the
(policy of university-industry partnerships) drawbacks. Say, the intrusion on
lecturers working time in university. University management should see
potential problems that arise from this matter and they should manage it
wisely. University needs to provide ample time and freedom for lecturers to do
129
their work and also the involvement with the industry (KP5 Key-person
Interview, 1 November 2007).
Hence, if the government wants the academics to get involved and collaborate
with the industry, respondents believe that they need to implement it in a way that
does not lead to academics being overloaded. A senior lecturer cum a program
coordinator of a public university branch (KP8) expanded on this issue. He believed
that this development had influenced his job satisfaction:
We (academics) are satisfied if the ministry (of higher education) and
university could help us balance our time for teaching and our involvement in
industry. If we have too much burden on lecturing, how could we spend
enough time to get involve with the industry? (KP8 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
As a conclusion, even though the issue of policy on university-industry

partnership was not discussed by the majority of the respondents in the qualitative
study, from these quotes and literature it appears to be an issue to be further
investigated.
4.3.4 Internationalisation of public universities
Malaysian universities focal goal is to become world-class (Badawi, 2007).

This goal has encouraged each university to upgrade the quality and quantity of its
human resources, physical facilities, research and development program and
curriculum. To attain world-class status, universities must be prepared to face the
challenge of global competition, adopt more complex multidimensional strategic
objectives, and change physical attributes, mindset and learning activities (Hagen,
2002).
The issue of the internationalisation of public universities and its association
with academics job satisfaction caught the attention of several interview respondents
(KP2, KP3, KP4 and FG2-2). The Former Minister of Higher Education (KP4) and
the Deputy Vice Chancellor (KP2) also highlighted the importance of the
internationalisation effort of the higher educational sector in Malaysia.
130
The ability to be at the world-class standard will ensure that higher education
institutions in Malaysia could be at the same level of universities in other developed
countries like United States of America, United Kingdom and Australia. The former
higher education minister (KP4) pointed out:
Linkages among local universities and international universities in term of
internationalisation also need to be fostered. Thats why we (Ministry of
Higher Education) created another specific task for the Deputy Vice
Chancellor which focused on internationalisation. Through the effort of
internationalisation, we could afford to send our professors abroad to gain
more experience and share their knowledge internationally. We also attained a
huge opportunity to have foreign professors be attached to several local
universities and share their knowledge and skills with us. In some way, our
local universities became credible and eminent internationally because of its
quality (KP4 Key-person Interview, 28 October 2007).
The former minister also stated that through this internationalisation concept:
vast opportunities given to our academics to further their studies abroad and
we (the higher education ministry) are really proud that local universities are
well-known all over the world (KP4 Key-person Interview, 28 October
2007).
The Deputy Vice Chancellor (KP2) supported the ministrys points when he
discussed:
For the university, the only way to be recognised internationally is to
implement a comprehensive academic system which comprised an
international standard of syllabus, teaching and learning process and practice,
research and development, academics knowledge and skills, facilities,
supporting staff and so on (KP2 Key-person Interview, 25 October 2007).
He further expressed:
.everybody in the university, supporting staff, academics, administrators,
management board, stakeholders, without any hesitation, should share the
same mission (to become internationally recognised) and work hard for it
(KP2 Key-person Interview, 25 October 2007).
131
However, the strategy and effort towards the internalisation of higher
educational sector is also argued to lead to dissatisfaction among academics. For
example, department director (KP3) stated:
In contrast, maybe some lecturers will be stressed because they need to uphold
the universitys mission to go international that seems to be too ambitious.
Too much pressure to become an international level university make us
lecturers be dissatisfied (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26 October 2007).
Correspondingly, a lecturer (FG2-2) boasted of his dissatisfaction towards the issue of

internationalisation of higher education. He elaborated:
It is good (the policy of internationalising higher educational sector) we
(academics) admit that is beneficial for everybody. Our only concern is: do
you (the government and university) think we are ready and capable to be at
that (international) level? I tell you that since the past two years, we
(academics in his university) had been pushed to restructure our syllabus, to
modify the way we deliver our lectures, to justify how our research could be
accepted internationally. You see, too much burden! I dont know with others
(the academic staff) but personally, I am not satisfied! (FG2-2 Focus Group
Hence, even though internationalisation of higher education is viewed by the

former higher education minister (KP4) and university managers as key to the
development of universities, at the operational level, it is linked to work overload. The
issue and findings of work overload will be further discussed in the organisational
factor of satisfaction in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
132
4.3.5 Expansion of Issues of GUPS in the Qualitative Study into the
Quantitative study
From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in focus groups,
it was clear that GUPS were generally perceived as an influential factor and giving
significant implications that further leads to academics job satisfaction. Apart from
the findings, the study also showed that there were four different specific issues being
spoken of by respondents which were perceived as sources of satisfaction in regards
to GUPS. These issues were funds for research and development activities, support
for academics to further their studies, policy on university-industry partnership, and
internationalisation of public universities.
Overall satisfaction and each sub-issue on GUPS differed based on different
categories of demographic backgrounds among interview respondents. These were
interesting and therefore, regarded by the study as important dimension to be included
in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection- the quantitative study. The
questions included in the particular survey instrument had been tested in a pilot study,
and the results of the reliability of the instrument were discussed in Chapter 3.
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with GUPS
among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to be
answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with government and
university policies and support?
2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with GUPS among academics by
different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in current
university, and holding a management position or not?
4.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with the government
and universities support and policies in the quantitative study. The scale of
Satisfaction with Government and University Policies and Support was used in the
quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction towards the specified
antecedent. Four items included in this measure were based on the literature reviews
133
findings and from the key issues that were initiated from the key findings in
interviews with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study.
The section presents descriptive analysis of mean, percentage, frequency, and
means comparisons in order to explain the data. On top of that, independent sample t-
tests, one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc tests
were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with GUPS by
different demographic backgrounds.
4.4.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with GUPS
To determine the level of satisfaction with the government and university

policies and support among respondents, frequencies and percentages of responses of
all respondents from the three participating public universities were calculated, and
mean and standard deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. The results of each
questions used in the measure were depicted in Table 4.3.
The mean value of responses were computed and categorised into 3 interval
level of responses accordingly to the work of Akpofure et al. (2006), DeMato (2001)
and Goff (2004). The interval level of satisfaction responses were 1= low (mean score
of 1.00-2.33), 2= moderate (2.34-3.67) and 3= high (3.68-5.00). Table 4.3 presents the
scores for each of the four questions on GUPS satisfaction responded by survey
respondents. All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 2 and Question
4) were reverse-coded. These negative-worded questions remained the same as what
been included in the quantitative study in order to show the norms of the original
questions.
For Question 1: The government (through the university) gives a holistic
support (in terms of monetary, physical, and morale) for me to develop my career as
an academic, majority of respondents scored agree (f=598, %=55.5) and agree very
much (f=240, %=22.3). On the other hand, the lowest score was disagree very much
(f=31, %=2.9).
134
Table 4.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Satisfaction
with GUPS
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question f % f % f % f % f %
Question 1:
The government
(through the university)
gives a holistic support
(in terms of monetary, 31 2.9 81 7.5 128 11.9 598 55.5 240 22.3
physical, morale, etc)
for me to develop my
career as an academic
(Mean= 3.87, SD=0.94)
Question 2# :
I am not satisfied with
the support given by the
government and
63 5.8 270 25.0 124 11.5 496 46.0 125 11.6
university in research
and development
activities.
(Mean= 3.32, SD=1.14)
Question 3:
Academics gain multiple
benefits from the
44 4.1 108 10.0 217 20.1 518 48.1 191 17.7
university-industrial
relationship. (Mean=
3.65, SD=1.01)
Question 4 #:
Policies and efforts on
internationalisation in
83 7.7 306 28.4 209 19.4 389 36.1 91 8.4
my university burdened
me to do my job.
(Mean= 3.09, SD=1.13)
Note: Negative-worded questions remained the same as in the quantitative study in order to
demonstrate the norms of the original questions.
n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage, 1=disagree very
much, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=agree very much. # = Negatively
worded question.
Based on the responses on Question 1, academics reflected a high level of

satisfaction in term of the government and universities general support (Mean=3.87,
SD=0.94). The findings on this question support the findings in the qualitative study
where academics comprehended the positive implications of government and
universities support towards their satisfaction. As a lecturer (FG1-1) and a tutor (FG1-
6) in the qualitative interviews highlighted their satisfaction with the support given
specifically in terms of scholarships given by the government for them to further their
135
studies, responses in the survey confirmed the same sense of satisfaction among the
respondents.
Question 2: I am not satisfied with the support given by the government and
university in research and development activities, is a negatively worded question.
Hence, after respondents scores were reverse coded, the results show that the highest
score among respondents was disagree (f= 496, %=46), while the lowest score was
agree very much (f=63, %=5.8). This reflects that most of the respondents were
satisfied with the support given by the government and university in research and
development activities. This is to be expected since some of the interview respondents
in the qualitative study mentioned that they were very happy with the fundamental
and monetary support provided by the government in terms of research and
development activities. However, based on the overall responses on Question 2,
respondents reflected a moderate level of satisfaction in terms of government and
universitys support in research and development activities (Mean=3.32, SD=1.14).
For Question 3: Academics gain multiple benefits from the university-
industrial relationship, the results show that the highest score among respondents was
agree (f=518, %=48.1), while the lowest score was disagree very much (f=44,
%=4.1). This finding enriched the findings in the qualitative study where academics
mostly agree that they were satisfied with the particular issues of university-industrial
relationship. Most of the key-persons in the qualitative interview regarded that this
factor is not only beneficial for the public universities, students, and the society, but
also for academic staff members. As elaborated by KP1 (in section 4.2.3), academics
benefited in terms of gaining industrial experience and an involvement in R&D
programs. Nonetheless, based on the responses on Question 3, respondents reflected a
moderate level of satisfaction in terms of gaining multiple benefits from the
university-industrial relationship (Mean= 3.65, SD=1.01).
For Question 4: Policies and efforts on internationalisation in my university
burdened me to do my job, after been reverse coded the results indicate that
respondents were divided nearly equal between those who responded that they
disagree and disagree very much (f=480, %=44.5) with those responded that they
agree and agree very much (f=389, %=36.1). This is important, indicating that
internationalisation policies and efforts were regarded as a burden by some
academics, whilst some of them did not think so.
136
Furthermore, based on the responses on Question 4, academics were
moderately satisfied that the policies and efforts on internationalisation in their
universities created a burden (Mean=3.09, SD=1.13).
In accordance to the findings presented in Table 4.3, a further analysis was
undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction towards the government and
universities support and policies. The result shows that respondents had a moderate
level of overall satisfaction towards government and universities support and policies
(Mean= 3.49, SD=0.66).
The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the qualitative
interviews that GUPS had considerably impacted academics job satisfaction. The
findings also support the work of Ghazi, Ali, Shahzada and Israr (2010), where they
found that academics in a Pakistan university were moderately satisfied with the
dimension of government and organisational policies and practices.
The current study supports the outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support
on research provision of further education subsidies by the government and/or
universities were regarded as important attributes towards academics job satisfaction.
The findings in the current study also support Seashore and Tabers (1975) assertion
that this variable is indeed relevant as an indicator or antecedent to job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural, and similar broad factors (in the
current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account to understand job satisfaction
(Seashore & Taber, 1975).
4.4.2 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS by Gender
An independent sample t-test was conducted in order to compare the

satisfaction with GUPS for males and females. Table 4.4 shows the t-test results for
satisfaction with GUPS among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that
there was no significant difference in scores for male academics (M=3.52, SD=0.67)
and female academics [M=3.44, SD=0.66; t (1041)= 1.91, p= 0.056].
Thus, we can conclude that there is no statistical significant difference in
satisfaction with GUPS by different gender among academics, even though male
academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their female counterparts. This
finding is similar to the responses pattern showed by respondents in the qualitative
137
interviews where there was no specific agreement on the overall level of satisfaction
towards GUPS between male and female respondents.
Table 4.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Gender
t-test for Sig.

Group
Levenes test equality (2-
for equality of of tailed)
Male Female variance means
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
M SD M SD F Sig. df t p
Government
& Universities
Policies & 3.52 0.67 3.44 0.66 0.45 0.504 1041 1.91 0.056
Support
Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for equality of
variance, df= Degree of Freedom, t= t-test value, p= significant value.
4.4.3 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to

explore the impact of age on levels of satisfaction with GUPS among academics.
Following Oshagbemis (1997) study on academics in the UK, respondents in the
online study were divided into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and
under; Group 2: 26 to 35; Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and
over).
Academics by Age
Source SS df MS F Sig.
Between Groups 6.783 4 1.696 4.745 0.004**
Within Groups 391.549 905 0.433
Total 398.332 909
Note: SS= Sum of Squares, df= Degree of Freedom, MS=Mean Square, F=F-Value, Sig=
significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05
138
Table 4.5 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with GUPS among
academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a statistically
significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with GUPS among the five
different age groups [F(4, 905)=3.919, p=0.004].
Table 4.6 below shows the results of post-hoc analysis for satisfaction with
GUPS among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of
satisfaction shown by the group of age between 46 and 55 years old (M=3.65,
SD=0.75), while the lowest mean scored was by the age group of 25 years old and
under (M=3.37, SD=0.73).
Table 4.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Age
Age n Mean SD 25 & 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &

Groups under over
25 & under 47 3.37 0.73 -
26-35 442 3.48 0.59 NS -
36-45 255 3.40 0.67 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.65 0.75 NS NS * -
56 & over 24 3.59 0.86 NS NS NS NS -
Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, NS= not significant,
* indicates significance at p<0.05
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who
were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.65, SD=0.75) had a significantly higher level of
satisfaction than their younger colleagues of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.40, SD=0.67).
No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other groups.
Therefore, it was evidenced that older academics in this age group were significantly
more satisfied than the younger ones towards GUPS. This might be so because older
academics had been through a satisfactory experience with GUPS as compared to
younger academics; seeing the improvement in their working lives as the government
increasingly emphasized education.
As mentioned by a 46 years old department director (KP3), she was satisfied
with GUPS and she believes that the government and universities policies and support
are purely aimed to generate not only the well-being of the university and its
academic staff, but also to nurture that well-being to the benefit of the public
139
generally. The 52 years old Deputy Vice Chancellor admitted that he became more
satisfied with the policy and practice of the government and his university when he
gets older and older. This is so, because he believes that the way of thinking as an
academic is getting matured based on ones perspective towards his career
development and the environment of their workplace-which is the university (KP2
A similar work with the current study was done by Ali, Shaharudin and Anuar
(2012) among academics in a public university situated at the northern region of
Malaysia. They found that older and more experienced academics have a higher
career satisfaction level with several factors including the changes and development
of the universitys policy. Furthermore, based on some of the major theme emerged
from the open-ended responses by the young academics in their study, reflected that
they were disappointed because the university applied a more stringent policy on
promotion on them compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42). This
particular finding in the current study is a key outcome in this research since there
were no past studies findings on the differences of satisfaction with GUPS especially
among academic staff based on different categories of age.
4.4.4 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Tenure

explore the impact of tenure in the current university on levels of satisfaction with
GUPS among academics. Respondents in the online study were divided into four
groups according to their tenure in the current university (Group 1: 10 years and
under; Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21 to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 3.402 3 1.134 2.587 0.052
Within Groups 393.536 898 0.438
Total 396.938 901
140
Table 4.7 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with GUPS among
academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically
significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with GUPS among the four
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=2.587, p=0.052]. Therefore, there were no
significant differences existed between academics in any of the groups of tenure with
GUPS. This finding of a large scale of academics in the three participating
universities did not support the findings in the qualitative study. In regards to the
findings in the qualitative study, almost all junior academics (who work for the
university for less than ten years) admitted that they were satisfied with GUPS while
only two seniors stated that they were satisfied with GUPS.
4.4.5 Differences in Satisfaction with GUPS among Academics by Management

Position

satisfaction with GUPS for academics holding management position and those
academics not holding any management position in the university.
Management Position
Sig. (2-
Group t-test for
tailed)
Levenes test equality
Do not hold a Hold a for equality of of
management management variance means
position position
Variable (n=376) (n=553)
Government
& Universities
Policies & 3.57 0.67 3.42 0.65 0.80 0.37 927 3.42 0.00**
Support
** Significant at p<0.05
141
Table 4.8 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with GUPS among academics
by management position. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant
difference in scores for academics that hold a management position (M=3.42,
SD=0.65) and academics that do not hold a management position [M=3.57, SD=0.67;
t (927)= 3.42, p<0.05]. Thus, academics without management position were more
satisfied than those who hold a management position.
These findings are in accordance to the findings of the qualitative interviews,
where academics in the operational level were mostly satisfied with GUPS, as
described by a tutor (FG1-6):
For me these developments really influence academics job satisfaction I
believe that every single policy, trend or new development structured by the
government and university is able to spark our work motivation, improve the
quality of our work, and could help to produce quality students it really
helps academics to feel satisfied with their job (FG1-6 Focus Group
The tutor described that the government and universitys support effects academics
work and provide a supporting system that assist with research, career, and potential
promotions in the university. Maybe those in management positions were less
satisfied as they were responsible for enacting or putting into practice the policies.
This is evidenced by the comments made by the provost of a public university
branch campus (KP6) where he thought that to be as a head or supervisor in a
department, one will find the difficulties to focus on his/her academic work such as
research or academic writing when most of the time, the attention should be given to
the management tasks (KP6 Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
However, the above findings is not supported by the work of Ali et al. (2012),
where they found that there was no significant difference between job position and
career satisfaction among academics in their study.
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter has first discussed the qualitative interviews with key-persons and focus
groups in regard to the satisfaction with GUPS. Secondly, the findings of the
142
qualitative study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study
pertaining to the satisfaction of academics towards GUPS.
The summary for the findings of satisfaction towards (GUPS) were depicted in
Table 4.10. Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the
interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction towards GUPS. These
were funds for research and development activities, support for academics to further
their studies, policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of
public universities. In each key issue, the discussions moved from satisfaction to
dissatisfaction.
Interview respondents tended to express their satisfactions with the support
given by the government and their universities, in particular support for them to
further studies. The policy on university-industry partnership was responded as a
factor that led to satisfaction and dissatisfaction among respondents. On the other
hand, funds for research and development activities and internationalisation of public
universities led to dissatisfactions among interview respondents.
143
Table 4.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with GUPS
Interview Findings Survey Findings

(n=17) (n=1078)
Overall Arising Overall Hold Management
Gender Age Tenure
Satisfaction Issues Satisfaction Position or Not
Mostly satisfied 1. Most of the satisfied
(9 respondents) respondents on the Moderate
overall satisfaction (Mean= 3.49, No significant Older academics No significant Academics without
towards GUPS were SD= 0.66) difference were more difference between management position
those in the between males satisfied seniors and juniors were more satisfied
operational level. and female
Government 2. Specific issues raised:

and
Universities - Funds for research
Policies and development
and Support activities
(GUPS) - Support for
academics to
further their studies
- Policy on
university-industry
partnership
- Internationalisation
of public
universities
Note: N = total respondents, = There was a significant difference in satisfaction scores
144
In the quantitative study, together with their overall job satisfaction responses,
there were differences of responses of GUPS by respondents based on different
categories of demographic backgrounds. They were age, gender, tenure in current
university and whether one holds a management position or not.
In summary, there were several key findings revealed in this chapter through
the qualitative interviews and quantitative study. Firstly, four key factors that lead to
academics satisfaction towards GUPS were confirmed through the qualitative
interviews. The key factors as stated earlier were funds for research and development
activities, support for academics to further their studies, policy on university-industry
partnership and internationalisation of public universities. These were initially
revealed in the qualitative interviews and confirmed in the quantitative study as
important considerations in satisfaction with GUPS.
Secondly, there were different types of ideas shared by the interview
respondents on each of the four key factors based on different types of demographic
backgrounds, by academics that hold management positions compared to those at the
operational level.
Thirdly, academics in the qualitative interviews were generally satisfied with
government and universities support and policies, but the level of satisfaction was not
yet defined. Hence, in a broader scale of respondents in the survey, the satisfaction
level with GUPS has been sought and the satisfaction among academics was
moderate. The finding in the quantitative study on the general level of satisfaction
with GUPS supported the work of Ghazi et al. (2010), where they found that
academics in a Pakistan university were moderately satisfied with the dimension of
government and organisational policies and practices.
This might be so, based on the fact that not all academics in Malaysian public
universities seemed to feel satisfied with the policies and support of the Government.
As mentioned by Thillaisundaram (2003: 19), academics in Malaysian higher
education institutions were mostly been exposed to the educational system applied in
various developed countries when they were there to further their education. Their
experience with the policies imposed by the foreign educational authorities where
they were furthering their studies, gave them the understanding and mind-set of what
are lacking in the Malaysian higher educational policies and system. When the
Malaysian Government could not practice and implement the same level of beneficial
policies such as the support for research and development activities, status-quo as
145
respected academics in the society, the perks and benefits given, and economic
stability, this was regarded as a key dissatisfactory cause that affected their level of
job satisfaction.
Additionally, based on the quantitative study findings, there were no
significant differences of satisfaction with GUPS based on different gender and tenure
of the academics. In regards to the findings related to gender, this was so because
there is no such policy, program, or strategy implementation that is different between
genders, where both genders are treated equally. This is based on the assertion of Raja
Zainal Abidin (2007) where the government without having any special focus on any
racial group, ethnicity, religion and including gender, has given a lot of subsidies and
monetary allocation to develop the nations human capital which is one of the
prerequisites of attaining higher value-added growth based on the recent global trends
and development of knowledge and technology. However older academics were
significantly more satisfied than the younger ones, and academics without any
management position were more satisfied than those with management positions.
In terms of the higher satisfaction with GUPS among older academics, this can
be predicted, since the outcome of the current study supports the work of Ali et al.
(2012). They had investigated academics in a public university situated at the northern
region of Malaysia where they found that older and more experienced academics have
a higher career satisfaction level with several factors including the changes and
development of the universitys policy. Furthermore, based on some of the major
theme emerged from the open-ended responses by the young academics in their study,
reflected that they were disappointed because the university applied a more stringent
policy on promotion on them compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42).
This particular finding in the current study is a key outcome in this research since
there were no past studies findings on the differences of satisfaction with GUPS
especially among academic staff based on different categories of age.
In regards to the findings that academics without management position were
more satisfied than those who hold a management position, the current finding is
opposing the outcome of Ali et al. (2012). As evidenced in the interviews with key-
persons and focus-group members in the qualitative study, those with the management
position have lower satisfaction with GUPS because they were burdened with the
responsibilities they hold and the needs to uphold the policies implemented by the
Government and university. For example, a key-person (KP6) admitted that he cannot
146
feel the freedom of doing what an academic should do (for example teaching,
conducting research, and writing academic articles) because the attention at the
workplace should be given to the management tasks.
It is worth to ponder that these particular findings of satisfaction with GUPS
among academics based on different demographic characteristics were key outcomes
in this research. Since there was no literature stating any similar findings especially
among academic staff, these were of importance in filling the gap of knowledge on
the satisfaction towards government and universities policies and support.
Fourthly, this chapter demonstrates the development of areas explored and
elaborated on from the key interview responses which showed that GUPS is an
important factor of academics satisfaction. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the
current study supports outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support on research
provision of further education subsidies by the government and/or universities were
regarded as important attributes towards academics job satisfaction. This was part of
the major issues argued by key-persons and focus group members in the qualitative
study which reflected the importance of including GUPS as a significant antecedent of
job satisfaction among academics.
The findings in this chapter also support Seashore and Tabers (1975)
assertion that this variable (GUPS) is indeed relevant as an indicator or antecedent to
job satisfaction. Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural, and similar
broad factors (in the current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account to
understand job satisfaction (Seashore & Taber, 1975: 349). This role was evidenced
by thorough discussions among key-persons and focus group interview respondents
on various GUPS issues which led to the outcomes of four major issues (which were
funds for research and development activities, support for academics to further their
studies, policy on university-industry partnership and internationalisation of public
universities) that influence academics job satisfaction (see Table 4.2 in page 7). Thus,
the relationship between GUPS as one of the antecedents of job satisfaction with
overall job satisfaction among university academics will be further explored
empirically in Chapter 8. Next, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 will discuss the satisfaction
with organisational factors using the findings of the qualitative interviews and
quantitative study.
147
Chapter 5
ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

PAY, PROMOTION, SUPERVISION, FRINGE BENEFITS AND
CONTINGENT REWARDS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the key organisational antecedents of academics job satisfaction
specifically pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards,
based on qualitative study through key-person interviews and focus groups conducted
with respondents from three public universities in November and December 2007.
Furthermore, this chapter details the findings of the quantitative study through a
quantitative study participated by academics from three participating universities from
November 2008 to March 2009. In this chapter these antecedents are presented in
several organisational categories based on the studies of Oshagbemi (1997), Spector
(1997), Mohd Noor (2004), and Akpofure (2006).
The aims of this chapter were first, to understand respondents impressions
and satisfactions on each of the organisational antecedents through a qualitative
method and then to investigate differences based on respondents demographic
backgrounds. Second, to further investigate a larger sample of respondents through a
quantitative method of data collection. The study also aims to investigate differences
in satisfaction with each of the organisational antecedents among academics by
different type of demographic backgrounds.
Satisfaction with organisational factors of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and
communication were identified by past research as influential antecedents of job
satisfaction and the study focused and explored the antecedents of pay, promotion,
supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. In the next chapter, the other
organisational antecedents of job satisfaction which are operating conditions, co-
workers, nature of work, and communication will be elaborated. In Chapter 8, the
148
study expands on this and tests the relationships between satisfaction with
organisational factors and overall job satisfaction.
The chapter is structured in 7 sections. In section 5.1, the data categorised as
satisfaction with pay is presented. The next sections categorise satisfaction as
satisfaction with promotion, satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with fringe
benefits, satisfaction with contingent rewards, satisfaction with operating conditions,
satisfaction with co-workers, satisfaction with nature of work and satisfaction with
communication. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 5.1.
Section Description


Pay Satisfaction study and quantitative study specifically on pay
satisfaction.

Promotion Satisfaction study and quantitative study specifically on promotion
satisfaction.
The section discusses the findings in the qualitative

5.4
study and quantitative study specifically on
Supervision Satisfaction
supervision satisfaction.

Fringe Benefits study and quantitative study specifically on fringe
Satisfaction benefits satisfaction.

Contingent Rewards study and quantitative study specifically on contingent
Satisfaction rewards satisfaction.

Conclusion qualitative study and quantitative study and concludes
the chapter pertaining to satisfaction with pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits and contingent
rewards.
149
Each organisational antecedent is structured in three sub-sections. First, the
general feelings of satisfaction with each antecedent of interview respondents are
detailed. Secondly, issues that were raised by all interview respondents regarding
satisfaction with each antecedent are elaborated. Thirdly, descriptive findings of the
quantitative study in regards with academics satisfaction with each antecedent are
presented.
5.2 Pay Satisfaction
5.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Pay
Pay has been typically used as a career barometer to measure status and equity
in the workplace and has been shown to affect morale positively or negatively (Laden
& Hagedorn, 2000:62). Spector (1997) deems pay as one of the key antecedents that
impacts an individual workers job satisfaction. Also, as evidenced by a meta analysis
on the antecedents of job satisfaction conducted by Brown and Peterson (1993), pay is
one of the most significant and important indicators of job satisfaction.
In each of the interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a
question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with pay. In the
interview with the former Minister of Higher Education (KP4), this question was not
asked as he can not speak on the capacity as an academic, and this was also
implemented for the other antecedents of job satisfaction such as promotion,
supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers,
nature of work, and communication. These answers were coded based on whether
they spoke of these in terms of satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor
satisfied; or no response was given or it was unclear. Table 5.1 presents this data.
Based on the findings in Table 5.1, ten of the interview respondents were
satisfied with pay. They include all seven key-persons in management level (KP1,
KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, and KP8) and three focus group respondents who were
academics at the operational level (FG1-2, FG1-4, and FG1-5). One academic
mentioned that he is dissatisfied (FG2-1), while five said that they were neither
dissatisfied nor satisfied with pay (FG1-1, FG1-3, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-3).
150
Therefore, evidenced by responses of interview respondents, all academics in
the management level were happy and satisfied with pay. On the other hand,
academics without any management position provided varied responses, where mostly
were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with pay, notwithstanding that some of them
regarded pay as a satisfaction or dissatisfaction factor.
As assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in Chapter 2
and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents, it was clearly
shown that academics considered pay as an influential factor that contributed to their
job satisfaction. Furthermore, all interview respondents initiated further discussions
on their general state of satisfaction pertaining to pay.
Table 5.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with pay
KP1 Satisfied
KP2 Satisfied
KP3 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP6 Satisfied
KP7 Satisfied
KP8 Satisfied
FG1-1 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
FG1-2 Satisfied
Focus Group FG1-3 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
1 FG1-4 Satisfied
FG1-5 Satisfied
FG2-1 Dissatisfied
Focus Group
2
5.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents
Ten of the key-person and focus group interviewees responded that pay
contributed to their satisfaction and that they were generally happy with it. Their
mutual agreement on the positive contribution of pay towards their job satisfaction
was illustrated by four responses by KP5, KP8, FG1-4, and FG1-5, as follows:
151
I bet whoever works as an academic in our (Malaysian) public university is
pleased with the salary he earns (KP5 Key-person Interview, 1 November
2007).
I am more than happy with what (pay rate) I have now. I believe all academics
in this university should feel the same way like I do (KP8 Key-person
of all, salary is among the most satisfying factors. Money is very important
to help me manage my life, and the amount of my salary is equal with job
burdens I do (FG1-4 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
To work as a lecturer is not easy, and it is really challenging. Some lecturers

think that they are supposed to get a better salary, but I am satisfied with the
amount of pay I earn now (FG1-5 Focus Group Interview, 26 October
2007).
5.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents
generally satisfied with pay, there were also a respondent who brought up his
dissatisfaction in the interviews. A young tutor (FG2-1) argued that salary is not a key
driver towards his satisfaction but more towards dissatisfaction. He asserted that:
I do know that some of my friends who work elsewhere in private sector being
paid with a far better and higher salary rate compared to what I got here. I am
totally not happy with my salary (FG2-1 Focus Group Interview, 25 October
2007).
The tutor seemed to be disappointed with his salary scheme provided by his
university. The tutor compares his earning to what his colleagues earn in the private
academic sector. This finding corresponded to what argued by Spector (1996:42)
where most employees are not concerned that people in other jobs earn more than
they do, but they are often quite concerned that people in the same job earn more.
152
The tutor further argued:
I think the university should revise the salary rate (of tutor like him). they
must do something on this central factor if they want to attract more potential
candidates out there to fill up this academic post (tutor). Sometimes, I feel
sorry for myself for working here (in the university) (FG2-1 Focus Group
It may be that at the lower levels of the university hierarchy, dissatisfaction

with pay is evidenced compare to those who are at the higher hierarchy levels in the
universities.
From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in focus
groups, it was clear that pay was generally perceived as an influential factor and with
significant implications that further leads to academics job satisfaction. The study
showed that both were being spoken of by respondents in regards to pay.
Based on the interviews key-persons expressed their satisfaction with pay was
an interesting findings which reflect that academics in management level seemed
satisfied with the salary they earned. On the other hand, mixed responses given by
both focus group respondents show that some of their satisfaction was driven by pay
while some did not share the same mutual opinion.
These findings therefore, are regarded by the current study as an important
dimension to be included in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection- the
quantitative study. Also, as evidenced by a meta analysis on the antecedents of job
satisfaction conducted by Brown and Peterson (1993), and the descriptive analysis of
job satisfaction among university academics in Pakistan by Bashir et al. (2012), pay is
one of the most significant and important indicators of job satisfaction. Hence,
findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with pay among
academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to be answered
through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with pay?

2. Are there any differences in pay satisfaction among academics by different
type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in current university,
and holding a management position or not?
153
5.2.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Pay
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with pay in the
quantitative study. Spectors (1997) pay questionnaire in Job Satisfaction Survey
(JSS) was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction
with pay. Five items included in this measure to measure satisfaction with pay were
suitable to reflect key findings in interviews with key informants and focus groups in
the qualitative study.
were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with pay by
different demographic backgrounds. Note that the same analyses were also made on
the other organisational antecedents of job satisfaction.
5.2.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Pay
Table 5.2 presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for each of
the five questions on pay satisfaction responded to by survey respondents. All
responses for negatively worded questions (Question 6, 7, and 8) were reverse-coded.
For Question 5: I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do, about
half of the overall respondents scored agree (f=544, %=50.5). On the other hand, the
lowest score was disagree very much (f=58, %=5.4). It reflected that most of the
respondents agreed that they were fairly paid for the work they do. On the whole,
respondents showed a moderate score of satisfaction with pay using this question
(mean=3.39, SD=1.07).
Question 6: raises are too few was a negatively worded question. Hence, after
the scores were reverse-coded, findings show that most of the respondents responded
that they were dissatisfied and very dissatisfied with the rate of their salary raises
(f=523, %=48.5). This was further proven with the mean result for the question which
showed that overall respondents scored a low value of satisfaction with pay
(Mean=2.85, SD=1.11).
154
Table 5.2: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions
on Pay Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 5:
I feel I am being paid a
fair amount for the 58 5.4 215 19.9 159 14.7 544 50.5 102 9.5
work I do.
(Mean= 3.39, SD=1.07)
Question 6# :
Raises are too few. 121 11.2 402 37.3 181 16.8 268 24.9 106 9.8
(Mean= 2.85, SD=1.20)
Question 7# :
Raises are too far
84 7.8 314 29.1 281 26.1 307 28.5 92 8.5
between.
(Mean= 3.01, SD=1.11)
Question 8#:
I feel unappreciated by
the organisation when I
78 7.2 251 23.3 205 19.0 422 39.1 122 11.3
think about what they
pay me.
(Mean= 3.24, SD=1.15)
Question 9:
I feel satisfied with my
chances for salary 44 4.1 216 20.0 229 21.2 483 44.8 106 9.8
increases.
(Mean=3.36, SD=1.04)
Note: Negative-worded questions were remained the same as in the quantitative study in order
to demonstrate the norms of the original questions.
worded question.
Responses by respondents on Question 7: Raises are too far between, were

fairly even between scores of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. A total of 398
respondents (36.9%) responded that they were dissatisfied and very dissatisfied while
399 respondents (37%) responded that they were satisfied and very satisfied. This
findings together with the total mean value for the particular question (Mean=3.01,
SD=1.11) mirrored a moderate score of satisfaction with pay.
Question 8: I feel unappreciated by the organisation when I think about what
they pay me is a negatively worded question. Hence, based on the reverse-coded
result, respondents seemed to answer that they felt appreciated by the university in
terms of pay amount. It also means that they were satisfied with the issue raised
through the question, where 544 respondents (50.4%) scored agree and agree very
155
much. Overall, respondents scored a moderate level of satisfaction with pay by this
question (Mean= 3.24, SD= 1.15).
Respondents of the quantitative study also scored a moderate level of
satisfaction with pay for Question 9 (Mean= 3.36, SD= 1.04). However, about half of
the total respondents of this question answered that they agree and agree very much
(f= 589, %=54.6).
In accordance with the findings presented in Table 5.2, a further analysis was
undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with pay. The result shows
that respondents had a moderate level of overall satisfaction with pay (Mean = 3.17,
SD=0.81) based on all four questions measuring the variable. This finding supports
similar outcome of Saygi et al. (2011) among academics in Fisheries Faculties at
Turkish universities, Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among university academics in
Nigeria, and Gabbidon and Higgins (2012) among criminal justice academics in the
United States of America, where respondents among academics in a were moderately
satisfied with pay.
However, the current studys finding does not support the finding of
Oshagbemi (1999) among university academics in the UK, Akpofure et al. (2006)
among higher education academics in Nigeria,and Koustelios (2001) among teachers
in Greek, where pay was the least satisfying factor.
The other central finding was that this quantitative study outcome supported
the outcome of the qualitative study that pay had been substantially perceived by
academics as an important antecedent of job satisfaction. Ten of the key-person and
focus group interviewees had responded that pay contributed to their satisfaction, for
example, a statement made by an academic in focus group:
of all, salary is among the most satisfying factors. Money is very important
to help me manage my life, and the amount of my salary is equal with job
burdens I do (FG1-4 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
Hence, it is worth further investigating if there were any differences of

responses on pay satisfaction among different type of academics demographic
backgrounds.
156
5.2.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender

satisfaction with pay for males and females. Table 5.3 shows the t-test results for
satisfaction with pay among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that
there was a significant difference in scores for male academics (M=3.26, SD=0.81)
and female academics [M=3.09, SD=0.80; t (1041)= 3.35, p= 0.01]. Thus, there is a
statistical significant difference in satisfaction with pay by different genders among
academics, where male academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their
female counterpart.
Table 5.3: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-

Group
Levenes test equality tailed)
for equality of of
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Pay 3.26 0.81 3.09 0.80 0.00 0.985 1041 3.35 0.001**
Note: n=total respondents, M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
equality of variance, df= Degree of Freedom, t= t-test value, p= significant value.
Pertinent key findings here were, first, this finding opposes the outcome of
Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among Malaysian academic staff in higher education
institutions, where they found no significant difference on pay among the respondents
by gender. The current study finding is also found to be dissimilar with Roberts and
Chonko (1994) where males have slightly lower satisfaction with pay than females.
Next, the current studys finding also went against the outcome of Okpara et al.
(2005) among university faculties in the United States of America, Abdulsalam and
Mawoli (2012) among university academics in Nigeria, and Arif et al. (2012) among
university teachers in Pakistan, where female employees were found to be
significantly more satisfied with pay than their male counterparts. Secondly, this
studys finding supports Bittner and OConner (2011) in terms of satisfaction with
157
pay among nurse academics in the New England region, where males were more
satisfied with their salary than their female colleagues.
5.2.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Age

explore the impact of age on levels of satisfaction with pay among academics.
Following Oshagbemis (1997a) study, respondents in the online study were divided
into five groups according to their age (Group 1: 25 and under; Group 2: 26 to 35;
Group 3: 36 to 45; Group 4: 46 to 55; Group 5: 56 and over).
Academics by Age
Between Groups 28.01 4 7.003 10.621 0.000**
Within Groups 596.67 905 0.659
Total 624.68 909
Note: SS= Sum of Squares, df= Degree of Freedom, MS=Mean Square, F=F-Value,
Sig=significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05
Table 5.4 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with pay among
significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with pay among the five
different age groups [F(4, 905)=10.621, p=0.00].
Table 5.5: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Age

Age Groups n Mean SD 25 & 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &
(in years) under over
25 & under 47 3.41 0.63 -
26-35 442 3.06 0.77 NS -
36-45 255 3.15 0.93 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.51 0.85 NS * * -
56 & over 24 3.52 0.77 NS NS NS NS -
Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, NS= not significant.
158
Table 5.5 above shows the results of post-hoc analysis for satisfaction with
pay among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of
satisfaction shown by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.52, SD=0.77), while the
lowest mean scored by the group of 25 years old and under (M=3.06, SD=0.77).
Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who
were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.51, SD=0.85) had a significantly higher level of pay
satisfaction than their younger colleagues of 26 to 35 years old (M=3.06, SD=0.77)
and 36 to 45 years old (M=3.15, SD=0.93). No significant difference existed between
academics in any of the other groups. This finding is inconsistent with Akpofure et
al.s (2006) where he found that in Nigeria, older academics were less satisfied with
pay than the younger academics.
5.2.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Tenure

explore the impact of tenure in the current university on levels of satisfaction with pay
among academics. Respondents in the online study were divided into four groups
according to their tenure in the current university (Group 1: 10 years and under;
Group 2: 11 to 20 years; Group 3: 21 to 30 years; Group 4: 31 years and over).
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 7.219 3 2.406 3.516 0.015**
Within Groups 614.538 898 0.684
Total 621.757 901
Table 5.6 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with pay among
academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a statistically
significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the four different
tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.516, p=0.015].
pay among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean value of
satisfaction shown by academics was for the group who have worked for 31 years and
159
over (M=3.40, SD=0.00), while the lowest mean scored by academics was in the
tenure group of 10 years and under (M=3.14, SD=0.79).
Table 5.7: Post-Hoc Analysis for Pay among Academics by Tenure

Tenure (years) n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over
10 & under 723 3.14 0.79 -
11-20 147 3.38 1.01 * -
21-30 29 3.27 0.76 NS NS -
31 & over 3 3.40 0.00 NS NS NS -
Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that academics who
have worked between 11 to 20 years (M=3.38, SD=1.01) had a significantly higher
level of pay satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under (M=3.14,
SD=0.79) No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other
groups of tenure.
Thus, it can be concluded that academics with a longer tenure had a
significantly higher pay satisfaction level as compared to their juniors. This finding is
opposite to Koustelioss (2001) and Saygi et al. (2011) where they found that there
was no significant difference of pay satisfaction between different categories of tenure
or working experience groups among Greek teachers and Turkish academics.
5.2.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management

Position

satisfaction with pay for academics holding management position or not holding any
management position in the university. Table 5.8 shows the t-test results for
satisfaction with pay among academics by either holding management position or not.
The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in scores for
academics that hold a management position (M=3.12, SD=0.81) and academics that
do not hold any management position [M=3.27, SD=0.84; t (927)= 2.67, p<0.05].
160
The findings in the quantitative study oppose the findings in the qualitative
study. This is interesting because, whether the mean difference looked relatively small
(M= 0.15), the findings on the satisfaction with pay among a greater number of
respondents in the survey showed a considerable higher satisfaction among those
without a management position as compared to their management counterparts. Thus,
the conclusion is that academics without any management positions were more
satisfied in terms of pay compared to academics with management positions.
This current studys results were different with the findings of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees without management position had a
lower level of satisfaction towards pay compared to the senior, middle, and first line
managers at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran.
Table 5.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Pay among Academics by Management
Position
Sig. (2-
Group
t-test for tailed)
Do not hold Levenes test equality
Hold a for equality of of
any
management variance means
management
position
Variable position
(n=553)
(n=376) df
M SD M SD F Sig. t p
Pay 3.27 0.84 3.12 0.81 1.46 0.23 927 2.67 0.008**
5.2.3 Summary of Key Findings on Pay Satisfaction
In a nutshell, most of the key-person and some of focus group interview

respondents responded that they were satisfied with pay. This showed that pay was
perceived as a driver towards satisfaction more among management people. Some of
the interview respondents raised issues of equity where some of them claimed that
they get a lower rate of pay compared to academics in private universities. Other than
that, some academics in lower levels of the university hierarchy raised their concern
161
on the unjust pay scheme obtained by them as compared to those at the higher
hierarchy levels in the university.
Based on the quantitative study findings, it was evidenced that respondents
had a moderate level of satisfaction with pay. This finding supports similar outcomes
of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012), Gabbidon and Higgins (2012) and Saygi et al.
(2011), but is not in accordance to the findings of Oshagbemi (1999), Koustelios
(2001), Barrett and Yates (2002), and Akpofure et al. (2006), where they found pay
was the least satisfying factor. The current study findings confirmed the influence of
the Malaysian socio-economic context in shaping the satisfaction with pay among
university academics. As argued by Mohamed (2006), the need to have a better
financial income had became one of the priorities among the workers including
academics in developing countries such as Malaysia. To compare the amount of their
own salaries and the better salary earned by academics in other developed countries
such as Singapore, Taiwan and Australia may not be relevant, but in reality this
cannot be avoided among academics in Malaysia, especially among those in public
universities. Additionally, evidenced by the argument of a tutor (FG2-1) in the focus
group interview, academics in public universities keep comparing the better salary
rate that academics in private foreign universities in Malaysia enjoy with what they
earn, and this has a significant impact on their job satisfaction.
Furthermore, this is in accordance with the argument of Herzberg (1971)s
Hygiene and Motivator theory where level of salary is one of the hygiene factors for a
worker. Hygiene means that it has a sense of medical resemblance because it
represents elements of the job which if removed or improved do not bring health but
merely prevent bad health (Sentovich, 2004). In this case, the current studys finding
confirms the Herzbergs theory that when the hygiene factor (pay) is dealt with, the
individual academic will find it easy to enjoy satisfaction from the other motivator
factors.
In the same sense of satisfaction with pay, males were more satisfied than
females and this supports the finding of Bittner and OConner (2011) but went against
the outcome of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) and Arif el al. (2012). In reality, there
were no differences in terms of pay earned by both male and female academics in
Malaysian Public Higher Educational Institutions (Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia, 2006). However, based on these specific findings, females seemed to be
less satisfied because they may think that they should get higher pay to meet family
162
needs. This was evidenced by a statement of a female academic in Focus Group 2 in
the preliminary interview who reflected on her responsibilities for the family:
I dont say that I am not happy with what I get (in terms of pay), but as a
mother of three kids and increasing socio-economic level in Malaysia, I think I
should be paid more...you know, to meet the needs of myself (and) my family
(FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
Older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones and this is
inconsistent with Akpofure et al.s (2006) outcome where older academics were more
satisfied on pay compared to younger academics. Then, different to Koustelioss
(2001) and Saygi et al. (2011)s findings, it was found that in the current study, senior
academics were more satisfied with pay than juniors. This may be due to his longer
length of tenure and acceptance of the reality of the situation Or it may be due to the
older academic earning higher pay.
Finally, academics without management position were more satisfied than
those with management position and this is different to the finding by Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006). Those with management positions may feel that their pay
rates are too low due to the heightened levels of responsibility especially due to the
changes evident in the higher education sector. There are no similar findings that can
be found in the literature specifically on the satisfaction with pay among Malaysian
higher education academics by those holding management positions. Therefore, the
current studys findings are considered as an important contribution in the realm of
pay satisfaction among academics higher education institutions with and without
management positions.
5.3 Satisfaction with Promotion
5.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Promotion
The next organisational factor that serves as one of the antecedents of

satisfaction is promotion. Brown (2008) and Spector (1997) believe that promotion
opportunity is one of the important indicators of an individual employees
satisfaction. In each of interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a
163
question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with promotion.
Table 5.9 presents this data.
Table 5.9: Interview respondents general satisfaction with promotion
KP1 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

KP3 Dissatisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP8 Dissatisfied
Focus Group FG1-3 Dissatisfied
1 FG1-4 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
FG1-6 Unclear/no response
Focus Group
FG2-2 Satisfied
2
In regards to the findings in Table 5.9, only one lecturer with a non-
managerial position (FG2-2) mentioned that he is satisfied with promotion. Three
respondents (KP3, KP8, and FG1-3) said that they were dissatisfied with promotion.
The majority had stated that they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (KP1, KP2,
KP5, KP6, KP7, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-1, and FG2-3). FG1-6 had given
an unclear response towards the question.
Based on the overall responses in the interviews, satisfaction with promotion
had not being discussed thoroughly among the interview respondents. This specific
issue was also mentioned by the interview respondents. This showed that academics
did not recognise promotion as a dominant factor contributing towards their job
satisfaction. The findings are in contrast to Akpofure et al.s (2006) and Mohd Noors
(2004) findings where workers tend to assess promotion as an important factor that
contributed to their overall job satisfaction.
164
5.3.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with
Promotion
Regarding this, a lecturer (FG2-2) from a focus group interview highlighted

his satisfaction through his statement:
To get promoted (for a higher rank) is really easy here (in the current
university) compared to what Ive gone through before (in previous
organisation) (FG2-2 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
However, a dean of faculty believed that no matter how hardworking and

productive an academic was, he can be dissatisfied if his work was not recognised by
the university and then hampered his chance to be promoted to a better position in the
organisation. She gave an example:
This had happened to one of my senior lecturers few years back. he was so
upset when all his academic responsibilities had been completed, he still
could not be promoted. I felt sorry for him the management neglected him
for no reason (KP1 Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).
Three of the other interview respondents (KP3, KP8 and FG1-3) expressed
their dissatisfaction with promotion policy in their universities. A senior lecturer cum
a department director (KP3) gave a lengthy argument:
I think that young lecturers are not supposed to complain too much We had
gone through so many procedures to get promoted. We work very hard,
publish many articles in journals, write a lot of books, and conduct research. It
took eight years to make us (seniors) to be eligible for a senior lecturer
application. Then, to apply for professorship, the evaluation on our job only
started from the first year of being senior lecturer. Young lecturers nowadays
have no right to complain because the policy has changed. The procedure and
chances for promotion are not as strict as what we faced. At their age of 30 to
35 they could easily be promoted as a senior lecturer. Just imagine, at this
young age they could be a senior lecturer. Undeniable, they were so lucky, and
how pity we (senior lecturers) were! (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26 October
2007).
165
An Associate Professor (KP8) asserted the same dissatisfaction with the issue
of how easy young lecturers are promoted compared to seniors:
I think my fellow friends who are at the same age of me felt a bit dissatisfied
and unhappy in terms of promotion system. They had strived for ten years and
able to finish their PhD study still it is hard to be promoted. Compared to
the young lecturerstoday very easy to be promoted even without PhD!
This is a set-back to senior lecturers like us (KP8 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
Hence, this is related to equity issue similar to pay. Academics evaluate their
situation with others and it is this evaluation or comparison that seems to lead to job
dissatisfaction. A lecturer in the focus group 1 (FG1-3) raised an issue of
misjudgement of the university management on academics performance in branch
campuses. His comment was:
I am upset with the process of promotion. the universitys higher
management and evaluators misjudge our real working performance. If it
continues to be like this, there will be no point to work hard, it is useless.
In this instance, university management is argued as being unfair through their

erroneous judgement on the works and effort done by some academics which
subsequently affected the process and chance of promotion among academics. All in
all, it seems here that it is an antecedent but at these workplaces people are not clearly
satisfied or dissatisfied with the issue of promotion.
Based on the findings of the interview with key-persons and academics in
focus groups, promotion has not been clearly shown as either an indicator towards
academics satisfaction or dissatisfaction at workplace. They spoke of it but could not
clearly articulate whether they were happy or not with the policy and practice of
promotion in their universities respectively.
Furthermore, overall satisfaction with promotion seemed to be equally
distributed between dissatisfaction and satisfaction specifically academics in
management level and in the operational level. Thus, this leads to a further
investigation in a broader group of academics, in order to seek whether or not the
same findings will appear.
166
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with promotion
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with promotion?

2. Are there any differences in promotion satisfaction among academics by
5.3.2 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Promotion
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with promotion

in the quantitative study. The scale of Promotion Satisfaction was used in the online
survey in order to investigate academics satisfaction with promotion. Four items
included in this measure were adapted from JSSs questions which measure
promotion satisfaction.
5.3.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Promotion
Table 5.10 presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for each of
the four questions on promotion satisfaction responded by survey respondents.
Response for negatively worded question (Question 10) was reverse-coded.
Question 10: There is really too little chance for promotion on my job was a
negatively worded question. Hence, after the scores were reverse-coded, findings
have shown that more than half of the respondents responded that they were disagree
and disagree very much with the statement in the question (f=546, %=50.6). The
mean result for the question showed that respondents had a moderate level of
satisfaction with promotion (Mean=3.21, SD=1.07). Based on the findings for
Question 11, there were 776 respondents (72%) agreed that those who do well on the
job stand a fair chance of being promoted. The findings of mean value also reflected
that respondents scored a high value of promotion satisfaction through the question
(Mean=3.77, SD=0.99).
167
Table 5.10: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions
on Promotion Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 10# :
There is really too little
chance for promotion on
66 6.1 259 24.0 207 19.2 479 44.4 67 6.2
my job.
(Mean= 3.21, SD=1.07)
Question 11:
Those who do well on
the job stand a fair
chance of being 32 3.0 108 10.0 163 15.1 549 50.9 226 21.0
promoted.
(Mean= 3.77, SD=0.99)
Question 12:
People get ahead as fast
here as they do in other
55 5.1 290 26.9 345 32.0 345 32.0 43 4.0
places.
(Mean= 3.03, SD=0.98)
Question 13:
I am satisfied with my
chances for promotions. 44 4.1 201 18.6 256 23.7 504 46.8 73 6.8
(Mean= 3.33, SD=0.99)
Note: Note: Negative-worded questions were remained the same as in the quantitative study
in order to demonstrate the norms of the original questions. n=total respondents,
SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage, 1=disagree very much, 2=disagree,
3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=agree very much. # = Negatively worded question.
Respondents of the survey scored a moderate level of satisfaction with

promotion through Question 12: People get ahead as fast here as they do in other
places (Mean= 3.03, SD= 0.98). Their responses were mainly scattered between the
responses of disagree (f=290, %=26.9), neither disagree nor agree (f=345, %=32), and
agree (f=43, %=4.0). This is an interesting finding that showed differences of
opinions between those who think that it is easy to be promoted at their workplaces
and with those who think of the other way around. Almost half of the respondents
responded that they agreed with Question 13: I am satisfied with my chances for
promotions (f=504, %=46.8). However, the overall mean for the question reflected
that respondent scored a moderate level of satisfaction with promotion (mean= 3.33,
SD= 0.99).
168
Based on the findings presented in Table 5.10, a further analysis was
undertaken to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with promotion based on the
mean of these four questions. The result shows that respondents had a moderate level
of overall satisfaction with promotion (Mean= 3.34, SD=0.71). Hence, the findings of
the quantitative study supported the outcomes of the qualitative study that academics
had a moderate level of satisfaction with promotion.
The current studys finding is not consistent with the findings of Oshagbemi
(1999) among university academics in the UK, Toker (2011) among academics in
Turkey, where they both found that their respondents have a very low satisfaction
with promotion. Furthermore, the finding opposes Akpofure et al.s (2006) outcome
where academics in Nigeria were highly satisfied with promotion.
5.3.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among academics by Gender
Table 5.11 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with promotion among
academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant
difference in scores for male academics (M=3.38, SD=0.75) and female academics
[M=3.29, SD=0.67; t (1041)= 2.11, p= 0.035].
Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-

Group
for equality of of
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Promotion 3.38 0.75 3.29 0.67 8.11 0.005 1041 2.11 0.035**
Note: n=total respondents M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
169
Thus, we can conclude that there is a statistical significant difference in
satisfaction with promotion by different gender among academics, where male
academics scored a slightly higher mean score than their female counterpart. This
finding yielded the same outcome as Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003) and Stevens
(2005) who found that women were less satisfied with their promotion prospects than
men.
5.3.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Age
Table 5.12 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with promotion
among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with promotion
among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=8.247, p<0.05].
Table 5.12: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion among
Academics by Age
Between Groups 16.92 4 4.229 8.247 0.000**
Total 481.05 909
Sig= significant value. ** Significant at p<0.05
promotion among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean value
of satisfaction shown was by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40),
while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21,
SD=0.80).
were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40) and who were 46 to 55 years old (M=3.52,
SD=0.82) had significantly higher levels of promotion satisfaction than their younger
colleagues of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21, SD=0.80) and 26 to 35 years old (M=3.28,
SD=0.66). No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other
groups. Hence, it can be concluded that older academics were more satisfied in terms
of promotion as compared to the younger ones. The finding is conflicting with the
170
outcome of Akpofure et al.(2006) and Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among
university academics in Nigeria respectively, where they found that older academics
were less satisfied with promotion than the younger academics.
Table 5.13: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Age

(Years) under over
25 & under 47 3.41 0.46 -
26-35 442 3.28 0.66 NS -
36-45 255 3.21 0.80 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.52 0.82 NS * * -
56 & over 24 3.88 0.40 NS * * NS -
5.3.2.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Tenure
Table 5.14 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with promotion
among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the four
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=4.827, p=0.002].
Table 5.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Promotion among
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 7.604 3 2.535 4.827 0.002**
Total 479.13 901
promotion among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction was shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30
171
years (M=3.57, SD=0.86), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure
group of 10 years and under (M=3.27, SD=0.71).
Table 5.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Promotion among Academics by Tenure

Tenure n Mean SD 10 & 11-20 21-30 31 &
(Years) under over
10 & under 723 3.27 0.71 -
11-20 147 3.49 0.77 * -
21-30 29 3.57 0.86 NS NS -
31 & over 3 3.50 0.00 NS NS NS -
level of promotion satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under
(M=3.27, SD=0.71) No significant difference existed between academics in any of the
other groups of tenure. Thus, it can be concluded that senior academics were more
satisfied on the promotion opportunities than the juniors.
The current studys finding is different with the findings of Chng et al.s
(2010), where they found that there was no significant influence of tenure towards
promotion satisfaction in their study among academics in private college in Penang
State, Malaysia. This can be explained by the nature of academic environment in
Malaysia where promotion opportunities are rather limited and it heavily counts on
the seniority or tenure of academic staff (Chng et al., 2010).
5.3.2.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Promotion among Academics by Management

Position
Table 5.16 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with promotion among
academics by either holding management position or not. The t-test results indicated
that there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management
position (M=3.42, SD=0.76) and academics that do not hold any management
position [M=3.27, SD=0.69; t (927)= 3.35, p<0.05]. In regards with the qualitative
172
studys findings, the quantitative study rectify the unclear differences of satisfaction
level towards promotion between both groups of academics.
Management Position
Sig. (2-
Group
t-test for tailed)
Do not hold Levenes test equality
Hold a for equality of of
any
management variance means
management
position
Variable position df
(n=553)
(n=376)
Promotion 3.27 0.69 3.42 0.76 10.39 0.01 927 3.35 0.001**
The current study supports the findings of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006)
among employees at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran, where they found that
employees without management position were less satisfied with promotion compared
to those in the management positions. Therefore, the conclusion is that, in the
Malaysian public higher educational setting, academics with management positions
were more satisfied in terms of promotion compared to academics without
management positions.
5.3.3 Summary of Key Findings on Promotion Satisfaction
All in all, based on the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in
the focus groups, promotion has not been clearly shown as either an indicator towards
academics satisfaction or dissatisfaction at workplace. Overall, most of the interview
respondents stated that they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with the aspect of
promotion. In another sense, a senior academic (KP3) and an associate professor
(KP8) raised their dissatisfactions with a more lenient promotion opportunity for
newer staff as compared to what the seniors like them needed to get through before
now.
173
Findings in the quantitative study showed that academics had a moderate
level of satisfaction with promotion. This finding is inconsistent with Oshagbemis
(1999) study among academics in the UK, Tokers (2011) among academics in
Turkey, and Akpofure et al.s (2006) study among academics in Nigeria. This may be
similar to the situation with pay satisfaction. Academics evaluate their situation
compared to others and it is this evaluation that seems to lead to either job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction.
Also, in regards to satisfaction with promotion, males were more satisfied
than females which yielded the same outcome as Crossman and Abou-Zakis (2003)
and Stevens (2005). The reality in the Malaysian context shows that statistically
males dominate most of the occupational sector including academics in public higher
education institutions (see Economic Planning Unit, 2007). It is not a surprise to find
that women will be less satisfied in terms of promotion in the Malaysian context,
since men are always viewed by the society as more capable of being a leader in any
team, department, or organization (Hassan and Hashim, 2011 and Mahmud, 2007).
In the context of age, it was found that older academics were more satisfied
than younger ones and this is conflicting with the outcome of Akpofure et al. (2006)
and Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) , where they found that older academics were less
satisfied with promotion than the younger academics. This is also different to the
findings of Chng et al.s (2010), where they found no significant influence of tenure
towards promotion satisfaction in their study among academics in a private college in
Penang State, Malaysia. What can be explained here is that these findings are based on
the fact that most of the Malaysian people regard a person to be more capable of being a
leader and deserving of promotion in their career when they become older and have a
longer tenure in the organisation. This can also be explained by the nature of academic
environment in Malaysia where promotion opportunities are rather limited and it
heavily relies on the seniority or tenure of academic staff (Chng et al., 2010).
This is evidenced by the statement given by a dean of faculty (KP1) in the
qualitative study where one of her colleagues had worked hard to get promoted. But it
was pointed out that the university neglected this by implementing the seniority-based
system for promotion. She added that this affected very much on her colleagues
motivation to work and his job satisfaction.
Furthermore, academics with management positions were more satisfied with
promotion compared to academics without management positions. This finding
174
supports the outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among
employees at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran. It is obvious that people who had
been promoted to a better position in the university feel that the university has
recognised their individual potentials and capabilities, hence they appreciated the
belief by the university of themselves and hence are satisfied in terms of promotion.
5.4 Supervision Satisfaction
5.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Supervision
Oshagbemi (1997) through his study on job satisfaction among academics in

UK higher education indicated that supervision is one of the key factors contributing
to academics job satisfaction. To determine whether or not the qualitative studys
findings support Oshagbemis (1997) findings, a question had been asked in each of
the interview sessions held with all of the interview respondents, about their general
feelings of satisfaction with supervision. Table 5.17 depicts this data.
Table 5.17: Interview respondents general satisfaction with supervision
KP1 Satisfied
KP2 Satisfied
KP3 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP6 Satisfied
KP7 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied
KP8 Unclear/no response
FG1-1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied
1 FG1-4 Dissatisfied
FG1-6 Dissatisfied
FG2-1 Satisfied
Focus Group
FG2-2 Dissatisfied
2
FG2-3 Dissatisfied
175
According to the findings in Table 5.17, six interview respondents (KP1, KP2,
KP3, KP5, KP6 and FG2-1) mentioned that they are satisfied with the supervision
aspect. Interestingly, five focus group respondents (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and
FG2-3) said that they were dissatisfied with supervision. Only three had stated that
they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (KP7, FG1-1, and FG1-5), while the rest
had conveyed an unclear or no response at all towards the question. The interviews
findings show that satisfaction toward supervision came mostly from the management
people, while dissatisfaction came from the operational level academics. These
findings also show that academics were apt to assess supervision as an important
factor that contributed to their overall job satisfaction. Therefore, the qualitative
studys finding supports Oshagbemis (1997) outcome that supervision is a pertinent
factor that influences academics job satisfaction.
5.4.1.1 Satisfied Respondents
Management peoples satisfactions were best represented by a University

Branchs Provost (KP6) elaboration on why he was satisfied with the aspect of
supervision:
I am very honoured and pleased to be given the opportunity to be at this
position by the universitys authorities. I work very close with them to ensure
that they are aware with everything I do and I am able to deliver the best
service to everybody. They (his superiors) provided great guidance and
assistance for me... (KP6 - Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
There was only one respondent from the focus group interviews, who
responded as being satisfied towards supervision. The tutor (FG2-1) asserted that:
As a young and inexperienced academic, I had been guided precisely by the
dean and facultys head department on how to do my work. They were very
assertive not only towards my needs, but also towards other academic staff
members. (FG2-1, Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
176
5.4.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents
Five focus group respondents (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-3)
stated that they were dissatisfied with the supervision factor. Some issues that
instigated dissatisfaction among respondents were fairness and consideration practised
by management people, management strategy and leadership, and lack of
consultation, freedom and authority. These dissatisfactions are specifically elaborated
in the next section.
5.4.2 Qualitative study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with

Supervision
Table 5.18 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with supervision,
spoken of and discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the table,
each interviewees response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is
represented by X symbol. These issues were categorised based on keywords and key
points of satisfaction with supervision.
177
Table 5.18: Issues on academics satisfaction with supervision in the qualitative study
Supervision KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Fairness & consideration
X X X
- Management strategy &
X X X X X X X X
leadership
X X X X X X X X
178
5.4.2.1 Fairness and consideration
Based on interview respondents feedback on the supervision factor, the issue

of fairness and consideration practised by supervisor and management people was
deemed as a source of dissatisfaction. Three respondents (FG1-4, FG1-6 and FG2-3)
spoke of their dissatisfaction in this issue. Comments made by two tutors in Focus
Groups (FG1-6 and FG2-3) best represent this issue:
I want them (management people in his faculty) to delegate any works to
everybody fairly. The current practice is, they (dean and head of department)
simply direct male academics to do everything rather than involving females
too... or simply delegate academic tasks among juniors and tutors.... they
allow senior lecturers too enjoy a lot of time for leisure. It is not fair I am
not happy (FG1-6 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
For the university and faculty management people they should understand
the academic colleagues situation dont easily give instructions and force
us to do this and that without knowing our problems, our hesitations. Mingle
around with us, give good support, and guide us properly. Overall, the way my
superiors supervise me lead to my dissatisfaction (FG2-3 Focus Group
It is interesting to note from the qualitative study, that only those who work in
the operational level initiated this issue and they seemed to be dissatisfied. No similar
arguments were spoken of by those academics in management level.
5.4.2.2 Management strategy and leadership
A former Minister of Higher Education (KP4) believed that academics

satisfaction is derived from a proper management and leadership style in the
university. This was clearly expressed by him:
In a university setting, leadership and supervision are really important in order
to enhance academic staffs satisfaction. For instance, a leader who gives
optimum recognition and trust to his or her academic staff in doing their job
179
will increase their job satisfaction and at the same time construct a good
relationship between both parties (KP4 Key-person Interview, 28 October
2007).
The former Ministers view is shared by the dean of a faculty (KP1). She further
argued that:
A leaders behaviour has a great impact towards academics job satisfaction.
As a leader, we need to be transparent, share all information we have with our
staff except on confidential things, and pull out any barriers between us and
our staff. Be in their shoes to understand their needs and what they could
contribute to us... When we are very open to them, they will be comfortable
enough to talk and share their views, their problems with us (KP1 Key-
person Interview, 23 October 2007).
In accordance to the views and suggestions of KP1 and KP4, showing good leadership
values will get them the full respect and support of the staff. However, a bad leader
will lead to dissatisfaction. Pertaining to this situation, a lecturer (FG1-2) asserted that
she is dissatisfied with the management strategy and leadership when she stated:
The most dominant factor contribute to dissatisfaction is management people
and their strategies. If the management people cannot administer and lead us
efficiently, it will contribute to our dissatisfaction (FG1-2 Focus Group
Her view was supported by the other lecturers (FG1-1 and FG1-3) in the same focus
group interview. For instance FG1-3 argued:
I am dissatisfied with the lack of convenient spaces given by the management
for academics to be involved in any decision makingthis is not a good style
of leadership (FG1-3 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
A lecturer in the other focus group interview (FG2-2) also expressed his
dissatisfaction with improper management leadership. He added that:
Some people up there, when they manage others, they easily direct people to
work and create a top to bottom communication. So, when a problem
occurred, this person will not know any problems happening to his
180
subordinatesand he will easily blame them (FG2-2 Focus Group
However, a young tutor (FG2-1) conveyed his satisfaction with his management when
he said:
To this extent, I am satisfied with my upper management people. This is
because my responsibilities assigned by the university encompass only
teaching and student activities. The university management never forced me to
do any additional works without my consent. I am really comfortable (FG2-1
5.4.2.3 Consultation and freedom
This issue had been spoken of with different emotions evident between key-
person interview respondents and focus group respondents. Academics in the
university management group asserted that they were satisfied with the freedom and
authority they have. For instance, a university branchs Director (KP6) said that he is
satisfied with the trust and freedom given by the university authorities to him to
manage his university campus branch. This is clearly expressed by him:
As far as I am concerned, as a campus director I got a full authority to justify
our campus vision and mission, programs objectives and other aspectsI
need to manage my lecturers, administrative staff, supportive staff, students
and other associated people. I am really satisfied because I have freedom to
manage the campus in my own way, using my own creativity (KP6 Key-
person Interview, 1 November 2007).
A dean of a faculty (KP1) believed that freedom and authority are not only needed by
the management people but also desired by all academic staff:
Freedom given by the university is other factor that contributes to academics
job satisfaction. For instance, lecturers desired the freedom of selecting places
to lecture and the use of complete aids and tools to teach (KP1 Key-person
181
The deans view that academics need freedom and authority to do their work is
supported by a tutor (FG2-3). She clarified that:
As the academic staff we want to have freedom in doing our job (for
example) freedom for doing our research, enough time and space to do library
research, flexible working hour, and the way we handle our lectures and
tutorials (FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
Nevertheless, the dean (KP1) further argued that freedom for academic staff has a
limit since the university must implement its rules and regulations to sustain a
productive teaching and learning process. She condemned some lecturers who
misused the freedom given by the university:
However, not all lecturers can discipline themselvesthey cant control
themselves. They misused the freedom (given by the university). Coming to
work late, cancelling classes without appropriate reasonsan organisation has
its own rules and regulations, and because of this some lecturers felt unhappy.
They felt they dont have enough freedom. For example the university
exercised the system of punch in-punch out in staff attendance, and academics
thought that the university totally scrutinising them. They are wrong (KP1
On the contrary, lecturers and tutors who do not hold management positions in
the university were dissatisfied on this issue (FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-2, and FG2-
3). They believed that academic staff members have no say on any issues and
management does not involve them in any of the universitys decision making
process. For instance, this view is clearly spoken out by a tutor (FG2-3):
Sometimes we dont know our rights. When a decision has made we didnt
know whether we could ignore or need to follow that particular decision.
Everything is ambiguous. We have no authority to say anything. Then, what
we like to do and we want to do is not supported by the management, but we
are urged to follow what others like to do (FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25
October 2007).
182
A comment from the other focus group interview respondent (FG2-1) supports
FG2-3s view:
especially for young lecturers or tutors where their ideas and opinions
always being rejected or in some condition they will be blamed because of
their so called poor opinion (FG2-1 Focus Group Interview, 25 October
2007).
Likewise, another tutor (FG1-6) emotionally elaborated on this issue:

Well, they (management people) always asked us to do things that we do
not really like to do. It is not that we do not want to do those work but to
force people to come to the office in the weekendhuh! It is not right! They
need to discuss with us firstget our responses. We are human, not robots.
They can direct robots to do this and that, but not us (FG1-6, Focus Group
A lecturer (FG2-2) in the other focus group interview also mentioned his
dissatisfaction with lack of authority and freedom when he elaborated:
I really hope that university will not control us or treat us like kids. Do not
restrict us with any obstacles that are not supposed to be there All in all, I
think that insufficient authority and freedom are among the major contributors
towards my job dissatisfaction (FG2-2 Focus Group Interview, 25 October
2007).
Hence, in these universities the lack of freedom seems to be leading to many

instances of job dissatisfaction among academics in the operational level.
groups, it was clear that supervision was generally perceived as an influential factor
with significant implications on academics job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Apart from the general satisfactions and dissatisfaction findings, the study also
showed that there were three different issues being spoken of by respondents which
were perceived as important measures on academics satisfaction with supervision.
These issues were fairness and consideration, management strategy and leadership,
and consultation, freedom and authority.
183
Overall satisfaction and each of supervision sub-issues differed based on
different categories of demographic backgrounds among interview respondents,
especially between management people and academics in the operational level. These
were interesting and therefore had initiated two research questions to be answered
through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with supervision?
2. Are there any differences in supervision satisfaction among academics by
5.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Supervision Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with supervision

in the quantitative study. The scale of Supervision Satisfaction adapted from
Spectors (1997) JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate
academics satisfaction with supervision. Four items included in this measure are
identical with key issues in the findings of interviews with key-person and focus
groups in the qualitative study.
5.4.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Supervision
The results of each question used in the measure are depicted in Table 5.19.
All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 15 and 16) were reverse-
coded. According to the findings of Question 14: My supervisor is competent in doing
his/her job, more than half of the total respondents responded that they agree and
agree very much with the question (f= 719, %=66.7). However, based on the mean
value for the question, the respondents were moderately satisfied with supervision
aspect (Mean= 3.61, SD= 0.92).
Question 15: My supervisor is unfair to me, is a negatively worded question.
After the scores were reverse-coded, the findings showed that more than half of the
total respondents answered disagree and disagree very much (f= 680, %= 60.3). It
reflected a reasonably high level of disagreement among respondents on the statement
of the question where they thought that their supervisors are fair to them, even though
184
overall mean score towards supervision satisfaction through this question
(Mean=3.61, SD=0.92).
Table 5.19: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Supervision
Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 14:
My supervisor is
competent in doing 25 2.3 128 11.9 206 19.1 599 55.6 120 11.1
his/her job.
(Mean= 3.61, SD=0.92)
Question 15# :
My supervisor is unfair
to me. 52 4.8 173 16.0 203 18.8 483 44.8 167 15.5
(Mean= 3.50, SD=1.08)
Question 16# :
My supervisor shows
too little interest in the
62 5.8 222 20.6 238 22.1 407 37.8 149 13.8
feelings of subordinates.
(Mean= 3.33, SD=1.12)
Question 17:
I like my supervisor.
26 2.4 81 7.5 266 24.7 564 52.3 141 13.1
(Mean= 3.66, SD=0.88)
n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,
1=disagree very much, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree,
5=agree very much. # = Negatively worded question.
More than half of the respondents answered that they disagree and disagree
very much with Question 16 (f= 8, %= 51.6). From the findings, respondents seemed
to agree that the supervisors show their interests in the feelings of subordinates.
A total of 705 respondents (65.4%) answered that they agree and agree very much
with Question 17. Furthermore, evidenced by the mean score of 3.66 (SD=1.12),
which very nearly reached high level of satisfaction among respondents, they reflect a
fairly high level of satisfaction supervision.
In accordance to the findings in Table 5.19, a further analysis was undertaken
to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with supervision based on the
185
cumulative score of mean for the four questions measuring supervision satisfaction.
The result shows that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with
supervision (Mean=3.53, SD=0.79). The finding supports the findings of Oshagbemi
(1999) and Koustelios (2001) who found that their respondents- university academics
in the UK and teachers in Greek respectively- had a moderate level of satisfaction
with supervision.
Subsequently, the findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of
the qualitative study that supervision was perceived by some academics as an
important antecedent towards satisfaction and dissatisfaction for some others. This
also reiterates the works of Ghazi et al. (2010), Hassan and Hashim (2011), Noordin
and Jusoff (2009), and Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where they found that
supervision is one of the key antecedents of job satisfaction among salespersons.
Consequently, based on the above findings of the current study and its
comparison made with past research, it is vital to investigate whether or not there are
any differences of satisfaction based on different type of demographic backgrounds.
5.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Gender
Table 5.20 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with supervision among
academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant
[M=3.50, SD=0.77; t (1041)= 0.86, p= 0.39]. Hence, there is no significant difference
found between male and female academics. The finding opposes the finding of
Okpara et al. (2005) where men are more satisfied with supervision than their female
counterparts.
186
Gender
t-test for Sig.
Group
equality (2-
Levenes test of tailed)
for equality of df means
Male Female variance
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Supervision 3.55 0.81 3.50 0.77 5.45 0.02 1041 0.86 0.39
5.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Age
Table 5.21 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with supervision
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with supervision
Table 5.21: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision among
Academics by Age
Between Groups 6.10 4 1.52 2.42 0.05**
Total 575.73 909
supervision among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction shown by academics who were 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40),
while the lowest mean scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=3.21, SD=0.80).
However, based on the post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test, academics in the
187
age group of 56 and over (M=3.88, SD=0.40) had a significantly higher level of
satisfaction with supervision than those in the group of 46 to 55 years old (M=3.63,
SD= 0.90).
Table 5.22: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Age

under over
25 & under 47 3.52 0.74 -
26-35 442 3.53 0.71 NS -
36-45 255 3.21 0.80 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.63 0.90 NS NS NS -
56 & over 24 3.88 0.40 NS NS NS * -
The finding is dissimilar with the one of Okpara et al. (2005), where they
found that older academics in the United States colleges and universities have a
significant lower level of satisfaction with supervision than the younger academic
groups.
5.4.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by Tenure
Table 5.23 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with supervision
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.326, p=0.019]. This finding supports the
outcomes of Saygi et al. (2011) and Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar and Lotfi-Goodarzi (2012)
where they found that there was a significant difference of level in satisfaction with
supervision among different tenure subgroups.
188
Table 5.23: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Supervision among
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 6.41 3 2.14 3.326 0.019**
Total 583.18 901
supervision among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30 years
(M=3.97, SD=0.93), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure group
of 10 years and under (M=3.51, SD=0.78).
Table 5.24: Post-Hoc Analysis for Supervision among Academics by Tenure

Tenure n Mean SD 10 & under 11-20 21-30 31 & over
10 & under 723 3.51 0.78 -
11-20 147 3.56 0.89 NS -
21-30 29 3.97 0.73 * * -
31 & over 3 4.00 0.00 NS NS NS -

level of supervision satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and under
(M=3.51, SD=0.78) and group of 11 to 20 years (M=3.56, SD=0.89). No significant
difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of tenure. Therefore,
it can be concluded that senior academics are more satisfied with supervision than
juniors. Since there is no similar past research that has specifically investigated this,
hence, the current studys finding is a significant contribution in regards to the effort
of investigating the differences of satisfaction with supervision among different tenure
subgroups especially among academics.
189
5.4.3.5 Differences in Satisfaction with Supervision among Academics by
Management Position
Table 5.25 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with supervision among
academics by either holding management position or not.
Management Position
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Do not hold Levenes test of
Hold a for equality of df
any means
management variance
management
position
Variable position
(n=553)
(n=376)
Supervision 3.59 0.74 3.40 0.83 1.58 0.21 927 1.77 0.076
Note: n=total respondents M= Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
The t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for
do not hold any management position [M=3.27, SD=0.69; t (927)= 3.35, p<0.05].
Therefore, it can be concluded that respondents whether they are in the management
position or in the academic position have no significant difference in their satisfaction
with the element of supervision.
In addition, the findings fails to reiterate the findings of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) where they found significant differences between ordinary
workers and management people in terms of satisfaction with supervision.
Furthermore, in their study, employees scored higher mean of satisfaction towards
supervision compared to their first line managers.
190
5.4.4 Summary of Key Findings on Supervision Satisfaction
As a conclusion, some of the respondents in the qualitative study were

satisfied with supervision. They were mostly academics from the management level.
However, there were also some respondents who were dissatisfied with the aspect of
supervision and they were mostly academics from the operational level. There were
three key issues related to satisfaction with supervision raised by the interview
respondents which were fairness and consideration, management strategy and
leadership, and lack of consultation, freedom and authority.
Based on the quantitative study findings, respondents showed that they had a
moderate level of satisfaction with supervision. The finding supports the outcomes of
Oshagbemi (1999) and Koustelios (2001) who found that their respondents had a
moderate level of satisfaction with supervision. Evidenced from the finding in the
current study with the past studies, it can be proposed that satisfaction with
supervision is not necessarily influenced by the cultural context of a country. But
rather it is dependent on the immediate supervisor or managers leadership,
management and supervisory traits that influence the level of satisfaction among the
academic staff members. Evidenced by several arguments in the interviews with
focus-group members, academics perceived that satisfaction is directly related to the
individual leaders ability to show optimum recognition, trust and fair judgment to his
academic staff.
More specifically, pertaining to satisfaction with supervision, older academics
were more satisfied than younger academics. The finding is dissimilar with the one of
Okpara et al. (2005) among academics in the United States colleges and universities.
Next, it is found that seniors were more satisfied than juniors based on their tenure in
the university. The finding reflects the fact that as they become older and have a
longer tenure in the university, academics tend to become more lenient in their
reviews towards the supervision shown by their superiors or managers. Compared to
their older counterparts, young academics tend to be rebellious and defined
supervision of their managers as an effort to scrutinise their work and restrict the
freedom of doing their job based on their capabilities and creativity. This is obvious
through the comment made by a member in focus-group interview (FG2-1) when he
thought that ones idea will be easily rejected because of his/her status as a young
lecturer in the faculty.
191
Since there is no similar past research has specifically investigated about this,
hence, the current studys finding is a significant contribution in regards to the effort
of investigating the differences of satisfaction with supervision among different tenure
subgroups especially among academics in Malaysian public higher education
institutions.
Consequently, there was no significant difference of satisfaction between
males and females, and this differs from the finding of Okpara et al. (2005) among
university teachers in the United States of America, where men are more satisfied
with supervision than their female counterparts. Also, there is no significant
difference of satisfaction with supervision between academics with and without
management position. This finding fails to reiterate the findings of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) among employees in Iran. The findings in the qualitative
study shown a pattern of the greater dissatisfaction among female academics and
those without management position, however based on a bigger scale of respondents
in the quantitative study, the pattern changed to be no differences of satisfaction
supervision based on these two demographic factors.
All in all, the findings in the current study restate the outcomes of Ghazi et al.
(2010), Hassan and Hashim (2011), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006), where they found that supervision is one of the key
antecedents of job satisfaction among employees.
5.5 Fringe Benefits Satisfaction
5.5.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits

university academics satisfaction is fringe benefits. Oshagbemi (1997) and Spector
(1997:8) assert that one of the main determiners of job satisfaction across different
occupations is fringe benefits. As argued by Artz (2010:627) fringe benefits can act as
valuable substitutes for wages and employers may choose to offer fringe benefits
since workers can have strong preferences for fringe benefits. Moreover, this may
192
decrease the prevalence of turnover as effectively as an equivalently valuable increase
in wages.
Table 5.26: Interview respondents general satisfaction with Fringe Benefits


Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP8 Satisfied
FG1-2 Satisfied
FG1-3 Satisfied
Focus Group 1
FG1-6 Satisfied
FG2-1 Satisfied
Focus Group 2 FG2-2 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
In each of interview sessions held with the interview respondents, a question

had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with fringe benefits. Table
5.26 presents this data.
According to the findings in Table 5.26, six interview respondents (KP5, KP8,
FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-6, and FG2-1) mentioned that they are satisfied with the aspect of
fringe benefits. Eight respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (KP1, KP2,
KP3, FG1-1, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-2, and FG2-3). Two key-persons had conveyed an
unclear or no response towards the question (KP6 and KP7).
This findings show that academics were mostly had a moderate level of
satisfaction with fringe benefits. However, some of them were satisfied with fringe
benefits. Interestingly, no respondents said that they were dissatisfied with fringe
benefits.
193
As assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in Chapter 2
and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents, it was clearly
shown that academics considered fringe benefits as an influential factor that
contributed to their job satisfaction.
5.5.1.1 Qualitative study Findings: Satisfied Respondents
In the key-person and focus group interviews, six interview respondents (KP5,
KP8, FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-6, and FG2-1) mentioned that they were satisfied and happy
with the fringe benefits provided by their universities respectively. The best
explanation of the satisfaction among those satisfied respondents was given by a head
of department (KP5). She believed that fringe benefits are a strong factor that
contributed to academics job satisfaction:
Annual bonus, annual leave, emergency leave, sufficient research funds,
special parking space, hospital benefits...what a great package! I am really
proud to serve the government (the university particularly). It is hard to find
this kind of perks in private organisation (KP5 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
5.5.1.2 Qualitative study Findings: Moderately Satisfied Respondents
As evidence in the interview findings most of the respondents stated that they
were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with fringe benefits. These reflect the fact that
they were moderately satisfied with the particular factor. Furthermore, the responses
came from both the group of academics in the management level and academics in the
operational level.
A Department Director (KP3) asserted that:

I am happy with the package of fringe benefits and rewards provided by the
government through the university. Yet, this is still not comparable to the
package offered by private institutions...they (academics in the private
universities) got a far, far better benefits (KP3 - Key-person Interview, 26
October 2007).
194
The head of departments arguments highlighted some concerns among those
moderately satisfied respondents that even though they were happy with the present
fringe benefits package, but they were still craving for a better one. Her arguments
were also related to the equity issues between public and private universities, where
academics in private universities seemed to have a better fringe benefits package
compared to academics in public universities.
According to the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in
focus groups, it can be assumed that they were generally had a moderate level of
satisfaction with fringe benefits.
There were no obvious differences of overall satisfaction with fringe benefits
among different categories of academics demographic backgrounds. In that sense, it
is essential for the current study to make a further investigation whether there are
differences of satisfaction level among a bigger scale of respondents.
Hence, findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with
fringe benefits among academics in higher education had initiated two research
questions to be answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of
respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with fringe benefits?

2. Are there any differences in fringe benefits satisfaction among academics
by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in
current university, and holding a management position or not?
5.5.2 Quantitative study Findings on Fringe Benefits Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with fringe

benefits in the quantitative study. The scale of Fringe Benefits Satisfaction was used
in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction with fringe
benefits. The scale adapted Spectors (1997) fringe benefits questionnaire in Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Four items included in this measure were suitable to reflect
key findings in interviews with key informants and focus groups in the qualitative
study.
195
5.5.2.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits
Table 5.27 below presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for
each of the four questions on fringe benefits satisfaction responded by survey
respondents. All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 18 and 21)
were reverse-coded.
Table 5.27: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Fringe
Benefits Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 18# :
I am not satisfied with
58 5.4 313 29.0 210 19.5 444 41.2 53 4.9
the benefits I receive.
(Mean= 3.11, SD=1.05)
Question 19:
The benefits we receive
are as good as most
47 4.4 248 23.0 275 25.5 468 43.4 40 3.7
other organisations
offer.
(Mean= 3.19, SD=0.98)
Question 20:
The benefit package we
have is equitable. 25 2.3 183 17.0 294 27.3 529 49.1 47 4.4
(Mean= 3.36, SD=0.89)
Question 21# :
There are benefits we
do not have which we 121 11.2 399 37.0 291 27.0 233 21.6 34 3.2
should have.
(Mean= 2.68, SD=1.03)
to demonstrate the norms of the original questions.n=total respondents, SD=standard
deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,
Respondents showed that they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits
through their responses on Question 18 (Mean= 3.11, SD=1.05). It is worth pondering
that there was a high number of respondents who were specifically satisfied with the
fringe benefits they received by answering disagree with the question (f=444, %=
41.2). Conversely, there were also a lot of respondents who were dissatisfied and
answered agree (f=313, %=29).
196
Based on the results of Question 19, respondents mostly agreed (f=468,
%=43.4) that they receive a good package of fringe benefits as compared to what the
other organisations offer to their employees. However, based on the mean score,
respondents were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits through the question
(Mean= 3.19, SD=0.98). This finding is associated with the issue of equity, where
some academics compare their fringe benefits package, to what people in other
organisations obtained (Artz, 2010).
For Question 20, respondents scored a mean value of 3.36 which shows that
they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits by answering the question.
However, it was interestingly found that half of the respondents answered that they
agree (f= 529, %= 49.1) and agree very much (f= 47, %= 4.4) that the benefit package
they have is equitable.
According to the findings of Question 21, almost half of the respondents
mostly agreed and agreed very much that there are benefits they do not have which
they should have (f=520, %=48.2). With mean value of 2.68 (SD= 1.03), respondents
reflected that they were moderately satisfied with fringe benefits through their
answers on this particular question. This seemed to be the lowest mean value
compared to other questions in measuring fringe benefits satisfaction. This might be
derived from most of the respondents dissatisfaction with benefits that they should
have as compared to what academics in other universities obtained.
As evidenced in the interview with KP3 (see section 5.5.1.2), she asserted that
some academics kept comparing the benefits provided by their universities
respectively with the benefits package offered by other educational institutions,
especially the private universities. This is because they believed they actually
deserved the same fringe benefits package where the universities were actually have
the capability of providing it.
to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with fringe benefits. The result shows
that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with fringe benefits (Mean=
3.09, SD=0.74). The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the
qualitative study and the outcome of Artzs (2010) study where fringe benefits was an
important antecedent of job satisfaction.
197
5.5.2.2 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Gender
Table 5.28: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by
Gender
t-test for Sig.
Group Levenes test (2-
equality
for equality of tailed)
Male Female of
variance df
(n=533) (n=510) means
Variable
Fringe
3.11 0.76 3.06 0.72 0.61 0.44 1041 0.97 0.33
Benefits
Table 5.28 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with fringe benefits among
academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant
[M=3.06, SD=0.72; t (1041)= 0.97, p= 0.33].
5.5.2.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age
Table 5.29 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with fringe
benefits among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with fringe
benefits among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=5.134, p<0.05].
Between Groups 11.53 4 2.88 5.134 0.00**
Total 519.43 909
198
fringe benefits among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction shown by group of age between 46-55 years old (M=3.19,
SD=0.80), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 36 to 45 years old (M=2.93,
SD=0.82). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics
between 46 to 55 years old have significantly higher mean levels of satisfaction
compared to those aged between 36 to 45 years old and 26 to 35 years old. No
significant difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.
Table 5.30: Post-Hoc Analysis for Fringe Benefits among Academics by Age
under over
25 & under 47 3.37 0.43 -
26-35 442 3.07 0.72 NS -
36-45 255 2.93 0.82 * NS -
46-55 142 3.19 0.80 NS NS * -
56 & over 24 3.00 0.74 NS NS NS NS -


Tenure
Table 5.31 shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with fringe benefits
among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=1.301, p=0.27]. The finding is dissimilar with the
outcome of Sarker et al. (2003) who found significant differences among tenure
groups of hotel employees in Thailand.
199
Between Groups 2.25 3 0.75 1.301 0.27
Total 520.54 901

Management Position
Table 5.32 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with fringe benefits among
academics whether they hold management position or not. The t-test results indicated
that there was no significant difference in scores for academics that hold a
management position (M=3.05, SD=0.75) and academics that do not hold any
management position [M=3.07, SD=0.76; t (927)= 0.13, p=0.90].
Therefore, no differences were found in satisfaction with the fringe benefits
among academics with a management position and without a management position.
The current studys outcome was dissimilar with the one found by Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) where employees were significantly less satisfied with
fringe benefits as compared to their manager counterparts.
Table 5.32: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits among Academics by
Management Position
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Do not hold Levenes test of
Hold a for equality of means
any df
management variance
management
position
Variable position
(n=553)
(n=376)
Fringe
3.07 0.76 3.05 0.75 0.85 0.36 927 0.13 0.90
Benefits
200
5.5.3 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits
As a summary, most of the respondents in the qualitative study responded that

they were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with fringe benefits. No other specific
issues on fringe benefits satisfaction were raised by respondents in the interviews.
Respondents in the quantitative study showed a moderate level of satisfaction
with fringe benefits. The findings related to the academics overall satisfaction with
fringe benefits in the quantitative study support the outcomes of the qualitative study
and the outcome of Artzs (2010) study where fringe benefits was an important
antecedent of job satisfaction. Furthermore, one of the possible causes of why the
satisfaction with fringe benefits is not high, might be derived from most of the
respondents dissatisfaction with benefits that they should have as compared to what
academics in other universities obtained. As evidenced in the interview with a key-
person (KP3), she asserted that some academics kept comparing the benefits provided
by their universities respectively with the benefits package offered by other
educational institutions, especially the private universities. This is because they
believed they actually deserved the same fringe benefits package where the
universities have the capability of providing it.
Older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger ones with
fringe benefits. This can be expected since older academics will mostly be those that
gain the fringe benefits given by the university to its academics staff members. Some
key-persons in the qualitative interview had shared their high satisfaction with fringe
benefits and admitted that most of the older academics were satisfied because most of
them hold a management position in their university respectively. Therefore, these
people enjoyed a lot of fringe benefits such as they have their own special car parks at
the office, a personal assistant, greater access to universitys facilities, and a phone
line that billed into the university account.
There was no significant difference in any other demographic backgrounds
among the respondents. Findings in the current study specifically to demographic
differences were contradicted to several past studies (see Crossman & Abou-Zaki,
2005; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006; Sarker et al., 2003).
201
5.6 Contingent Rewards Satisfaction
5.6.1 Qualitative study Findings: General Satisfaction with Contingent

Rewards
According to Spector (1997) the next organisational factor that serves as one
of the antecedents of university academics satisfaction is contingent rewards.
Satisfaction with contingent rewards described by Spectors (1997) as satisfaction
with rewards- not necessarily monetary- given for good performances.
In each interview session held with the entire interview respondents, a
question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with the
contingent rewards. Table 5.33 presents this data.
Table 5.33: Interview respondents general satisfaction with Contingent Rewards
KP1 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Key-person KP4 -
FG1-1 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Focus Group FG1-3 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
1 FG1-4 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
FG2-1 Dissatisfied
Focus Group
FG2-2 Dissatisfied
2
FG2-3 Dissatisfied
According to the findings in Table 5.33, majority of respondents from both

Key-person and Focus Group interviews (KP1, KP2, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, FG1-1,
FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-5, and FG1-6) had responded that they were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with contingent rewards. Three respondents in Focus Group
202
2 interviews (FG2-1, FG2-2, and FG2-3) had expressed their dissatisfaction with
contingent rewards, while KP8 had given an unclear response.
5.6.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issue on Recognitions
Apart from their general satisfaction with contingent rewards, the interview
respondents also initiated discussions on a specific issue that impacted on their
satisfaction with contingent rewards, which was recognition.
In regards to this issue, two tutors (FG2-1 and FG2-3) expressed their
dissatisfaction with what they saw as double standard recognitions from the
management people towards different level of academic posts. Dissatisfaction as
expressed by those two tutors might come from the reality that a tutor is the lowest
rank for an academic in their university. Hence, they got less recognition and
contingent rewards compared to the other lecturers, senior lecturers, and professors.
This is also associated with the issue of equity, where in this sense, academics in
lower ranks have been ignored by the university management compared to people in
the higher ranks. Pertaining to this, a tutor (FG2-3) elaborated:
Besides teaching when we do other tasks, we dont get enough appreciation or
recognition you see, when we (academics) do our job well, those people
(the university management) dont appreciate and dont recognise our good
achievement. Instead of appreciation, those people (the university
management) always force us to perform better and better. It is a huge
pressure and makes us feel like finding other place to work (we) just (need
to) leave this university if they keep treating us like this. (FG2-3 Focus
Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
groups, it was clear that contingent rewards was generally perceived as an influential
factor and with significant implications that lead to academics job satisfaction. The
study showed that there was generally a moderate level of satisfaction being argued of
by respondents in regards to contingent rewards.
However, the fact that some of the respondents among those who were in the
operational level had expressed their dissatisfaction with contingent rewards this is
another key finding that cannot be overlooked in the qualitative study. These were
203
interesting and therefore, regarded by the study as an important dimension to be
included in the questionnaire in the next phase of data collection the quantitative
study.
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with contingent
rewards among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions to
be answered through the quantitative study among a larger sample of respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with contingent rewards?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with contingent rewards among
academics by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age,
tenure in current university, and holding a management position or not?
5.6.3 Quantitative study Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with contingent

rewards in the quantitative study. The scale of Contingent Rewards Satisfaction was
used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction with the
specified antecedent. Four items included in this measure were adapted from JSSs
questions which measure contingent rewards satisfaction. These four items are
identical with general satisfaction and key issues raised in the findings of interviews
with key-person and focus groups in the qualitative study.
5.6.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards
The results of each questions used in the measure were depicted in Table 5.34.
All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 23, Question 24, and
Question 25) were reverse-coded.
Based on Question 22, there were 664 respondents (61.6%) who agree and
agree very much that they receive the recognition that they should get when they do a
good job. Most of them also feel that the work they do is appreciated through their
responses in Question 23.
However, responses for Question 24 were distributed nearly equal between
those who agree and agree very much (f=398, 36.9%) and those who disagree and
204
disagree very much (f=429, %=39.8). Some academics might feel that they received
few rewards while others think conversely.
Table 5.34: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Contingent
Rewards Satisfaction (N=1078)
1 2 3 4 5
Responses
(n=1078) f % f % f % f % f %
Question
Question 22:
When I do a good job, I
receive the recognition
27 2.5 142 13.2 245 22.7 597 55.4 67 6.2
for it that I should
receive.
(Mean= 3.50, SD=0.89)
Question 23# :
I do not feel that the
work I do is
51 4.7 287 26.6 256 23.7 439 40.7 45 4.2
appreciated.
(Mean= 3.13,
SD=1.01)
Question 24# :
There are few rewards
for those who work 36 3.3 362 33.6 251 23.3 384 35.6 45 4.2
here.
(Mean= 3.04, SD=1.00)
Question 25# :
I dont feel my efforts
are rewarded the way 52 4.8 298 27.6 285 26.4 370 34.3 73 6.8
they should be.
(Mean= 3.11, SD=1.04)
n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,

to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with contingent rewards. The result
shows that respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with contingent rewards
(Mean= 3.19, SD=0.78). The findings of the quantitative study supported the
outcomes of the qualitative study that contingent rewards was an important antecedent
of satisfaction among academics. It is vital to investigate whether or not there are any
differences of satisfaction based on different type of demographic backgrounds.
205
Gender
Table 5.35 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with contingent rewards
among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant
difference in scores for male academics (Mean=3.28, SD=0.82) and female academics
[Mean=3.09, SD=0.73; t (1041)= 3.99, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that there is a
statistical significant difference in satisfaction with contingent rewards by different
gender among academics, where male academics scored a higher mean score than
their female counterpart. This does not mean that females get fewer rewards than
males, because there is no different policy on giving rewards based on gender
differences in Malaysian public universities (See Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2010). Female academics may think that they
should get more than what they get without comparing with what are obtained by
male academics.
Table 5.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among
Academics by Gender
Sig.
Group Levenes test t-test for (2-
for equality of equality tailed)
Male Female variance of means
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
df
Contingent 3.28 0.82 3.09 0.73 11.27 0.001 1041 3.99 0.00**
Rewards
Note: n=total respondents, M=mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
5.6.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among Academics by Age
Table 5.36 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with contingent
rewards among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with contingent
rewards among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=6.09, p<0.05].
206
Table 5.36: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards
Between Groups 15.05 4 3.76 6.09 0.00**
Total 573.99 909
contingent rewards among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction shown by group of age 56 years old and over (M=3.54,
SD=0.74), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old (M=3.12,
SD=0.76) and 36 to 45 years old (M=3.12, SD=0.87).
Table 5.37: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by Age
under over
25 & under 47 3.22 0.62 -
26-35 442 3.12 0.76 NS -
36-45 255 3.12 0.87 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.43 0.78 NS * * -
56 & over 24 3.54 0.74 NS NS NS NS -
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics of 56

years old and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to
those aged between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant
difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age. The finding
reflected the argument of Oshagbemi (1999) that older workers are more satisfied
than their younger counterparts because they actually have better or more
recognition by the organisation.
207
Tenure
Table 5.38 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with contingent
rewards among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there
was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among the
four different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.77, p<0.05].
Table 5.38: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards
Between Groups 7.11 3 2.37 3.77 0.01**
Total 571.78 901
contingent rewards among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction shown by academics who have worked between 21 to 30
years (M=3.36, SD=0.70), while the lowest mean scored by academics in the tenure
group of 31 years and over (M=2.75, SD=0.71).
Table 5.39: Post-Hoc Analysis for Contingent Rewards among Academics by Tenure
10 & under 723 3.15 0.79 -
11-20 147 3.34 0.83 * -
21-30 29 3.36 0.70 NS NS -
31 & over 3 2.75 0.00 NS NS NS -
level of contingent rewards satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and
under (M=3.15, SD=0.79). No significant difference existed between academics in
any of the other groups of tenure. In the case of tenure group of 31 and over, although
208
they scored the lowest mean among the other groups (M=2.75, SD=0), note that this
tenure category has no significant difference with other tenure groups as depicted in
5.39, hence the category of 31 and over was excluded in the comparison between
mean score.
As elaborated by Oshagbemi (1999b), the current study explains that seniors
are more satisfied not only because they tend to be better rewarded and praised by the
organisation or superiors, but also because they expect less or because they care less
about rewards from their jobs.

Management Position
Table 5.40 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with contingent rewards
among academics by whether they hold a management position or not. T-test results
indicated that there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a
management position (M=3.11, SD=0.78) and academics that do not hold any
management position [M=3.30, SD=0.79; t (927)= 3.65, p<0.05].
Table 5.40: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Contingent Rewards among
Sig. (2-
Group
tailed)
t-test for
Do not hold Levenes test
Hold a df equality
any for equality of
management of
management variance
position means
Variable position
(n=553)
(n=376)
Contingent
3.30 0.79 3.11 0.78 0.875 0.35 927 3.65 0.000**
Rewards
Thus, the conclusion is that academics without any management positions

were more satisfied in terms of contingent rewards compared to academics with
management positions. This finding opposes the finding of Rad and
209
Yarmohammadian (2006) where they found that employees have a lower level of
satisfaction with contingent rewards than their manager counterparts. This is because
the management people probably get more due to extra allowance paid to those in
management positions (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006).
5.6.4 Summary of Key Findings on Contingent Rewards Satisfaction
All in all, most of the respondents in the qualitative study mentioned that they
were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with contingent rewards factor. This similar
response was shared almost equally between those in the management level and those
in the operational level. An issue of double standard recognitions has been raised by a
couple of tutors which highlighted a concern on equity.
Respondents in the quantitative study reported a moderate level of satisfaction
with contingent rewards. Furthermore, in regards to contingent rewards satisfaction by
demographic differences, findings showed that males were more satisfied than
females. This does not mean that females get fewer rewards than males, because there
is no different policy on giving rewards based on gender differences in Malaysian
public universities (See Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and Ministry of Higher
Education Malaysia, 2010). Female academics may think that they should get more
than what they get without comparing with that obtained by male academics.
Next, older academics were more satisfied than younger ones. The finding
reflected the argument of Oshagbemi (1999b) that older workers are more satisfied
than their younger counterparts because they actually have better or more praises by
the organisation. Then, senior academics were found to be more satisfied than juniors.
This was so, which in accordance to the elaboration by Oshagbemi (1999b), where
seniors are more satisfied not only because they tend to be better rewarded and
praised by the organisation or superiors, but also because they expect less or because
they care less about rewards from their jobs (p401).
those with management position, and this contradicts the finding of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees at university hospitals in
Iran. The current studys finding seems to be problematic where as compared to Rad
and Yarmohammadian (2006), those who hold a management position we would
presume should be more satisfied with the contingent rewards since being provided
210
with the opportunity to hold a position is a form of trust and recognition given by the
university. The current studys finding might reflect that in a big scale of respondents
in the quantitative study, academics in Malaysian public universities generally viewed
that they had been given ample recognitions by the university.
5.7 Conclusion
This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with key-person and focus
groups in regard to satisfaction of all nine organisational antecedents, which were pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating condition, co-
workers, nature of work, and communication. Secondly, the findings of the qualitative
study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study pertaining to
satisfaction of academics towards all organisational antecedents.
Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the
interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction with several of the
organisational antecedents. In each key issue discussed by the interview respondents,
some lead to satisfaction and some dissatisfaction.
there were differences of responses of each of the organisational antecedents by
respondents based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. They were
age, gender, tenure in current university and whether one holds a management
position or not. Summary for the findings on all nine organisational antecedents of job
satisfaction were depicted in Table 5.41 below.
211
Table 5.41: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents of Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits and Contingent
Rewards

Organisational (n=17) (n=1078)
Antecedent Overall Arising Issues Overall Gender Age Tenure Hold Management
Satisfaction Satisfaction Position or Not
Pay Majority were 1. Academics in management level Moderate
satisfied were more satisfied towards pay (Mean= 3.17, Males were Older Senior Academics without
(10 respondents) SD= 0.81) more academics were academics management
2. Equity issues in comparison to satisfied than more satisfied were more position were more
private universities and senior females satisfied satisfied
academics
Promotion Majority were 1. Both academics in management Moderate
neither and operational level had a modest (Mean= 3.34, Males were Older Senior Academics without
dissatisfied nor level of satisfaction with promotion SD= 0.99) more academics were academics management
satisfied satisfied than more satisfied were more position were more
(11 respondents) 2. Equity issue raised by a senior females satisfied satisfied
academic on her dissatisfaction with
the promotion opportunities for
newer staff
Supervision Some were 1. Satisfactions were mostly from Moderate No No significant
satisfied management people, while (Mean= 3.53, significant Older academics Senior difference in
(6 respondents) dissatisfactions were from the SD= 0.79) difference in were more academics satisfaction with
and operational level satisfaction satisfied were more supervision
some were with satisfied
dissatisfied 2. Specific issues raised: supervision
(5 respondents) - Fairness and consideration
- Management strategy and
leadership
212
Fringe Benefits Half of the 1. No obvious differences of overall Moderate No No No significant
respondents satisfaction among different (Mean= 3.09, significant Older significant difference in
were neither demographic backgrounds SD= 0.74) difference in academics were difference in satisfaction with
dissatisfied nor satisfaction more satisfied satisfaction fringe befits
satisfied 2. No issues raised other than with fringe with fringe
(8 respondents) general state of satisfaction with benefits benefits
fringe benefits
Contingent Majority were 1. Issue of Recognition Moderate
Rewards neither (Mean= 3.19, Males were Older Senior Academics without
dissatisfied nor SD= 0.78) more academics were academics management
satisfied satisfied than more satisfied were more position were more
(12 respondents) females satisfied satisfied
213
In summary, based on the results depicted in Table 5.41 there were several key
findings revealed in this chapter through the qualitative study and quantitative study
on the satisfaction with organisational antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision,
fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. Firstly, all the investigated antecedents
arising from the literature that lead to academics satisfaction were confirmed through
the qualitative study. These were then confirmed in the quantitative study as
important considerations in satisfaction with organisational antecedents. Secondly,
there were different types of ideas and issues identified by the interview respondents
in regards to the antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and
contingent rewards. Thirdly, academics in the qualitative study generally have a
moderate level of satisfaction with each of the organisational antecedents of pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, and contingent rewards. Interestingly,
academics in the quantitative study supported the findings from the qualitative study
where they were moderately satisfied with all the investigated antecedents. Fourthly,
some discussions and arguments spoken of by all interview respondents differed
based on several categories of demographic backgrounds. These differed among
academics in management level versus academics in operational level and between
senior academics and junior academics. Further investigations were undertaken in the
quantitative study to reveal any differences in satisfaction with all the organisational
antecedents by different type of demographic backgrounds.
Additionally, the selection of demographic backgrounds to be included in the
online study was based on the literature and past research. The specific results on
differences in satisfaction by different categories of age, gender, tenure and whether
one hold management position or not, can be found in Table 5.41. The findings in this
chapter that specifically focus on the antecedents of pay, promotion, supervision,
fringe benefits, and contingent rewards will be discussed further in Chapter 9
comparing with the findings of other past research.
Next, Chapter 6 will discuss the satisfaction with the other organisational
antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and communication
Chapter 7 will discuss the satisfaction with work-life balance using the findings of the
qualitative study and quantitative study. Chapter 8 explores these antecedents and
their effects on academics overall job satisfaction and intention to leave proposing a
comprehensive model of interrelationships between all antecedents.
214
Chapter 6
ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

OPERATING CONDITIONS, CO-WORKERS, NATURE OF WORK AND
COMMUNICATION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter is the continuity chapter of Chapter 5 and explains the key organisational
antecedents of academics job satisfaction based on key-person interviews and focus
groups conducted with respondents from three public universities in November and
December 2007. Furthermore, this chapter details the findings of the quantitative
study participated by academics from three participating universities from November
2008 to March 2009. In this chapter these antecedents are presented in four broad
organisational categories based on the studies of Oshagbemi (1997), Spector (1997),
Mohd Noor (2004), and Akpofure (2006).
The aims of this chapter were in accordance with the aims provided in Chapter
5. First, to understand respondents impressions and satisfactions on each of the
organisational antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, the nature of work,
and communication through a qualitative method and then to investigate differences
based on respondents demographic backgrounds. Second, to further investigate a
bigger scale of respondents through a quantitative method of data collection. The
study also aims to investigate differences in satisfaction with each of the
organisational antecedents among academics by different type of demographic
backgrounds.
Satisfaction with organisational factors operating conditions, co-workers, the
nature of work, and communication were identified by past research as influential
antecedents of job satisfaction, apart from several organisational antecedents of job
satisfaction explained in Chapter 5 and the study focused and explored these
antecedents. In Chapter 8, the study expands on this and tests the relationships
between satisfaction with organisational antecedents and overall job satisfaction.
215
The chapter is structured in six sections. First, the data categorised as
satisfaction with operating conditions is presented. The next sections categorise
satisfaction as satisfaction with co-workers, satisfaction with the nature of work and
satisfaction with communication. The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in
Figure 6.1.
Section Description
6.1 The section introduces the chapter and gives an overview
Introduction of the next sections.
6.2
The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study
Operating Conditions
and quantitative study specifically on operating conditions
Satisfaction
satisfaction.
6.3 The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study

Co-Workers Satisfaction and quantitative study specifically on co-workers
satisfaction.
6.4
Nature of Work The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study
Satisfaction and quantitative study specifically on the nature of work
satisfaction.
6.5 The section discusses the findings in the qualitative study

Communication and quantitative study specifically on communication
Satisfaction satisfaction.

Conclusion qualitative study and quantitative study and concludes the
chapter.
Each organisational antecedent is structured into three sub-sections. First, the

general feelings of satisfaction with each antecedent of interview respondents are
detailed. Second, issues that were raised by all interview respondents regarding
satisfaction with each antecedent are elaborated. Third, descriptive findings of the
quantitative study in regards with academics satisfaction with each antecedent are
presented.
216
6.2 Satisfaction with Operating Conditions
6.2.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions

university academics satisfaction is operating conditions. In each of interview
sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a question had been asked about
their general feelings of satisfaction with operating conditions. Table 6.1 presents this
data. Based on the findings in Table 6.1, only two interview respondents responded
that they are satisfied with operating conditions and both of them were the
management people (KP1 and KP2). Nine respondents responded that they are
dissatisfied with operating conditions, where three of them were academics in
management level (KP5, KP6, and KP7), and six of them were respondents in focus
groups (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG2-1, and FG2-3). Four key-persons had
responded neither dissatisfied nor satisfied to this question (KP6, KP8, FG1-5, and
FG1-6) and one respondents (KP3) gave unclear or no response towards the question.
Table 6.1: Interview respondents general satisfaction with operating conditions
KP1 Satisfied
KP2 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Dissatisfied
KP6 Dissatisfied
KP7 Dissatisfied
KP8 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied
FG1-1 Dissatisfied
FG1-2 Dissatisfied
FG1-5 Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied
FG2-1 Dissatisfied
Focus Group
2
FG2-3 Dissatisfied
217
Therefore, as assumed in the theoretical framework of the study presented in
Chapter 2 and evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents in the
qualitative study, it was clearly shown that academics considered operating conditions
as an influential factor that contributed towards their state of satisfaction, and in the
interviews it was regarded mostly as a source of dissatisfaction.
6.2.1.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfied Respondents
As elaborated and discussed in Chapter 2, operating conditions was an issue regarded

by past research as one of the key antecedents of job satisfaction. In the qualitative
study, only two key-persons (KP1 and KP2) responded that they were satisfied with
the aspect of operating conditions. For instance, KP1 argued:
Anyway, I am still happy and satisfied because I managed to give a good
service as the administrator (of the university) and I do think that all my job
has been done perfectly (KP1 Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).
KP2 also argued about his satisfaction, when he said:

I love to challenge myself. To be at this stage of career (being a deputy vice
chancellor of a university) is really challenging, and I feel really good! (KP2
6.2.1.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Dissatisfied Respondents
Nine respondents, which represent more than 50 percent of the overall interview
respondents, had responded that they were dissatisfied with the aspect of operating
conditions, and this is one of the key findings in the qualitative study. For instance, a
lecturer (FG1-1) shared his dissatisfaction:
A lot of works! Too many responsibilities! I know that teaching, conducting
research, and so forth are my responsibilities as an academic... Nonetheless
when I need to do everything in a same time it will be a huge burden to me.
Just imagine, we academic staff need to carry out works like students
administration, subjects registration for every semester, theses supervision,
students program, and so on (FG1-1 Focus Group Interview, 26 October
2007).
218
In the next section, this dissatisfaction will be further elaborated.
6.2.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues of Satisfaction with Operating

Conditions
Apart from their general state of satisfaction with operating conditions, the interview
respondents also initiated discussions on several important issues that impacted on
their satisfaction with operating conditions. Table 6.2 below represents each of the
issues of satisfaction with operating conditions, spoken of and discussed by
interviewed key-persons and focus groups.
Pertaining to this antecedent of job satisfaction, three central issues had been
discussed in the interviews with most of the key-persons and academics in both focus
group interviews. These issues are facilities at workplace, uninterrupted working
conditions and work responsibilities.
There were several key-points revealed from Table 6.2 based on the responses
given by key-persons and focus group members. As we can see, all the three issues
were spoken of mostly by focus group members who were academics in the
operational level of the universities. Academics in management level had spoken only
of two issues which were facilities at workplace and holding too many
responsibilities.
The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on each
issue and highlight key findings from each issue.
219
Table 6.2: Issues on academics satisfaction with operating conditions in the qualitative study
Operating Conditions KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Facilities at workplace
X X X X
- Uninterrupted working
conditions X X X X X X
X X X X X X
220
6.2.2.1 Facilities at the workplace
On this aspect, four of the interview respondents (KP5, FG1-2, FG1-3 and FG2-3) had
revealed their dissatisfaction with various facilities at their workplace respectively.
FG1-2 and FG1-3 simultaneously pointed out their view in their focus group
interview when they elaborated:
I refer to the facilities provided by the university like books, journal and
unlimited internet usage. These factors aid academics to add up the quality and
quantity of their academic outputs because that could assist in gaining greater
access for academic sources (FG1-2 Focus Group Interview, 26 October
2007).
I agree with you (FG1-2). From the aspect of the working environment and
facilities provided, it will contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If
photocopy machines in the office are not working well, A4 papers for notes or
lectures activities are not sufficient, or lecture halls are not conducive, it will
disturb the smoothness of our teaching process. Toilet, caf, office, common
room and so on also do effect our job satisfaction if these facilities are not
being managed properly (FG1-3 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
A head of department (KP5) also mentioned about the importance of having a good
condition of facilities at the university which in turn is a satisfaction factor for him:
I am not satisfied with the problematic lecture halls and tutorial rooms they
are too small not enough chairs for students, no LCD... I do not like to
implement a chalk and talk approach when teaching. I am a kind of lecturer
who likes to use latest technology for teaching. When in reality, these facilities
are not well equipped; I am not happy and dissatisfied. (KP5 Key-person
A tutor (FG2-3) argued particularly about the library of her university which
contributed to her dissatisfaction:
I think, what could make me satisfied is more comprehensive books and
references provided by the university library. With complete library source, it
221
would help me provide enough references and materials to lecture... Other
universities will also value a university if it could build up its library with
complete quality books and references. As for me, for a new university to be
developed, the management needs to put the library as one of the main
elements to be built first (FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
So, of the four respondents speaking on this issue, there seemed to be dissatisfaction
among them with the facilities provided in their workplace.
6.2.2.2 Uninterrupted Working Conditions
Another issue pertaining to operating conditions is uninterrupted working conditions.

Six interview respondents (FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-5, FG2-1 and FG2-3)
admitted that work interruptions could affect their satisfaction. This issue was spoken
of extensively by two tutors (FG1-4 and FG2-3).
FG1-4 clearly felt uncomfortable when his administration roles interfere with
his teaching especially if it is unexpectedly popped up. He argued that:
If there are too many distractions at workplace, those distractions will make
one stressful, uncomfortable and then dissatisfied. For example, when I want
to make a test in my class, all of a sudden there is an ad-hock meeting or an
occasion needs to be attended. Because of this, I need to cancel my students
test and find other day to do it. I am really upset if this situation happens. I
cant say no to these ad-hock tasks. However at the same time I need to deliver
my lecture and finish my syllabus. If I am always distracted with all these
things, how could I focus on my classes? I feel uncomfortable and dissatisfied
A tutor in another focus group (FG2-3) spoke of the same issue of too much
administration work. She added that lack of planning by the management also
interrupted academics focus on teaching and research:
In terms of management planning such as facultys annual programs planning,
I am really upset with any ad-hock programs that were not listed in the
planning phase. This improper planning of faculty programs will disturb
academics teaching timetables and their allocated times for doing research,
222
writing and so on. The delegation of tasks for each program is also bothersome
because it was not really clear who is supposed to do what (FG2-3 Focus
6.2.2.3 Work responsibilities
The issue of work responsibilities was revealed by many interview respondents (KP6,
KP7, FG1-1, FG1-4 and FG1-6) either as a cause of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in
terms of operating conditions. With many speaking of the overloading of
administration roles in conflict with academic work, a Provost of a university branch
(KP6) admitted that he is not satisfied with his management role when he said:
I am not satisfied maybe because I need to focus more on my responsibility as
a director of the campus and cannot spend quality time on my academic
responsibility. You know, I cannot blame anybody because I was assigned by
the university and I have agreed to do my job the best I can. I am just not
satisfied with the academic aspect because I cannot focus on it. I am thinking
of not renewing my contract as the campus provost after this and dedicate
myself fully to academic responsibility (KP6 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
Dissatisfaction with the burden of multiple responsibilities was also shared by a

deputy provost of a university branchs campus (KP7). He explained:
One big question that I always asked myself was when will I stop holding
this administrative position while at the same time I am also a lecturer? This
administrative responsibility disturbed my focus on teaching, and do what I
am supposed to do as an academic. I need to choose just one of these two
responsibilities, not both for the sake of my job satisfaction (KP7 Key-
person Interview, 1 November 2007).
A tutor (FG1-6) commented on the burdens that need to be carried out by academic
staff appointed as administrators in the university:
Academics are also hampered by administrative responsibilities and need to go
through rigid performance appraisal process. It will limit our good academic
development. Some academic staff in this university had been burdened with
223
administrative positions which would make their intellectual quality wasted
and limited opportunity to develop their academic knowledge (FG1-6 Focus
Another tutor (FG1-4) in the same focus group interview backed the arguments of
FG1-6. He depicted the consequence of holding too many responsibilities such as
administration tasks:
I believe that when somebody is being assigned with an administration
position for a long period, this will limit their efforts on knowledge and
intellectual development it is because their number one focus now is no
longer on academic but more towards their administrative works. This could
risk their job satisfaction (FG1-4 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
In contrast, there were also interview respondents who expressed their job
satisfaction despite holding multiple responsibilities and their arguments were
mentioned in the preceding section. Both of these key-persons (KP1 and KP2) felt
satisfied with the responsibilities they carried out. Maybe their satisfaction derived
from the fact that both of them are at the top management level and could focus on
their administration career.
Furthermore, they have no role overload like others including academics who
responded to this issue who did not hold a management role. Academic staff members
still see themselves as having an academic career while the management people hold
minimum responsibility towards academic roles such as teaching, and doing research.
groups, it was revealed that operating conditions lead towards academics
dissatisfaction. Apart from the findings of general state of satisfaction, the study also
showed that there were three specific key-issues being spoken of by respondents
which were perceived as sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in regards to
operating conditions. These issues were facilities at workplace, uninterrupted working
conditions and work responsibilities. Mainly, the respondents asserted that they were
dissatisfied with the issues raised in the interviews.
Overall satisfaction and each of sub-issues on operating conditions were either
the same or different based on different categories of demographic backgrounds
among interview respondents. These were interesting and therefore, regarded by the
224
study as an important dimension to be included in the questionnaire in the quantitative
study.
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with operating
conditions among academics in higher education had initiated two research questions
to be answered through the quantitative study among a bigger scale of respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with operating conditions?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with operating conditions among
academics by different type of demographic backgrounds of gender, age, tenure in
current university, and holding a management position or not?
6.2.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with operating

conditions in the quantitative study. The scale of Operating Conditions Satisfaction
was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction with
operating conditions. The scale adapted Spectors (1997) operating conditions
questionnaire in Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Four items included in this measure
were suitable to reflect key findings in interviews with key informants and focus
groups in the.
6.2.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Operating Conditions
Table 6.3 below presents the frequencies, percentages, and mean scores for
each of the four questions on operating conditions satisfaction responded by survey
respondents. All questions in operating conditions satisfaction were negatively
worded questions; hence all of the responses for Question 26, Question 27, Question
28, and Question 29 were reverse-coded.
Based on the responses for all the questions on operating conditions,
respondents thought that many of universities rules and procedures make doing a
good job difficult (Question 26: Mean= 2.73, SD= 1.16). Furthermore, they thought
that their efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape and bureaucracy
(Question 27: Mean= 2.55, SD= 1.07). Respondents also thought that they have too
225
much to do at work (Question 28: Mean= 2.36, SD= 1.13) and face too much
paperwork (Question 29: Mean= 2.41, SD= 1.15).
Table 6.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on Operating
Conditions Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 26# :
Many of our rules and
procedures make doing 154 14.3 385 35.7 189 17.5 296 27.5 54 5.0
a good job difficult.
(Mean= 2.73, SD=1.16)
Question 27#:
My efforts to do a good
job are seldom blocked 165 15.3 451 41.8 199 18.5 234 21.7 29 2.7
by red tape.
(Mean= 2.55, SD=1.07)
Question 28# :
I have too much to do at
work (e.g. lecturing,
doing research, 236 21.9 493 45.7 130 12.1 163 15.1 56 5.2
administration tasks,
etc.).
(Mean= 2.36, SD=1.13)
Question 29# :
I have too much
paperwork (e.g.
lecturing, doing 246 22.8 424 39.3 182 16.9 173 16.0 53 4.9
research, administration
tasks, etc.).
(Mean= 2.41, SD=1.15)
Note: n=total respondents, SD=standard deviation, f=frequency, % =percentage,
5=agree very much. #= Negatively worded question.
In accordance to the findings in Table 6.3, a further analysis was undertaken to

investigate the overall level of satisfaction with operating conditions. The result
shows that respondents had a low level of satisfaction with operating conditions
(Mean= 2.51, SD=0.82). The finding of the quantitative study supported the outcome
of the qualitative study where academics were generally dissatisfied with the aspect of
operating conditions. The finding also supports the outcome of Oshagbemi (1999) and
Koustelios (2001) where physical conditions or working facilities was a dissatisfying
factor among their respondents respectively. On the other hand, Akpofure et al.
226
(2006) reported a different outcome, where college educators in Nigeria had a high
level of satisfaction with operating conditions specifically in regard to workloads.
Based on the comparison of the present study with past research, it is
interesting to investigate further the differences of satisfaction with operating
conditions based on different categories of demographic backgrounds of academics.

Gender
Table 6.4 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with operating conditions among
academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in
scores for male academics (Mean=3.28, SD=0.82) and female academics
[Mean=3.09, SD=0.73; t (1041)= 3.99, p=0.14]. This finding was different to the
works of Abdulsalam and Mawoli (2012) among university academics in Nigeria, and
Arif et al. (2012) among university teachers in Pakistan, Koustelios (2001) who found
significant differences of satisfaction between male and female respondents, where
women were more satisfied with their working conditions than men.
Table 6.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among
Academics by Gender
t-test for Sig.
Group
Levenes test equality (2-
for equality of of tailed)
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Operating 2.56 0.80 2.48 0.84 1.84 0.18 1041 3.99 0.14
Conditions
227
Age
Table 6.5 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with operating
conditions among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there
was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with
operating conditions among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=4.614, p<0.05].
Table 6.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions
Between Groups 12.02 4 3.01 4.614 0.001**
Total 601.62 909
operating conditions among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction was shown by the group aged 56 years old and over
(M=2.97, SD=0.66), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old
(M=2.43, SD=0.82).
Table 6.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics

by Age
under over
25 & under 47 2.72 0.80 -
26-35 442 2.44 0.82 NS -
36-45 255 2.48 0.84 NS NS -
46-55 142 2.64 0.74 NS NS NS -
56 & over 24 2.97 0.66 NS * * NS -
228
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics of 56
years old and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to
those aged between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant
difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.
Based on these findings together with some evidence in the qualitative study,
it is obvious that older academics were more satisfied with the aspect of operating
conditions because they could easily adapt to any difficulties or problems at the
workplace. Evidenced by the responses given in the interview by KP1 and KP2,
where both of them were now more than 50 years old, they thought that any problems
occurred need to be treated as a challenge. According to them, that could lead to job
satisfaction.

Tenure
Table 6.7 shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with operating conditions
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=3.40, p<0.05].
Table 6.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions
Between Groups 6.63 3 2.21 3.40 0.017**
Total 590.30 901
operating conditions among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the
highest mean value of satisfaction was shown by academics who have worked
between 21 to 30 years (M=2.90, SD=0.68), while the lowest mean was scored by
academics in the tenure group of 31 years and over (M=1.75, SD=0.43).
229
Table 6.8: Post-Hoc Analysis for Operating Conditions among Academics by Tenure
10 & under 723 2.48 0.81 -
11-20 147 2.49 0.80 NS -
21-30 29 2.90 0.68 * NS -
31 & over 3 1.75 0.43 NS NS NS -

level of operating conditions satisfaction than those in tenure group of 10 years and
under (M=2.48, SD=0.81). The conclusion is senior academics have a higher
satisfaction with operating conditions than their junior counterparts. This finding is
different with the outcomes of Saygi et al. (2011) and Toker (2011) where they did
not find any significant differences of satisfaction with operating conditions between
different groups of tenure among university academics. Therefore, the specific finding
in the current study is one of the key contributions in this thesis. In particular, the
finding filled the gap in the investigation of satisfaction with operating conditions by
different tenure subgroups.

Management Position
Table 6.9 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with operating conditions among
academics by either holding a management position or not holding a management
position. t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for
do not hold a management position [M=2.49, SD=0.80; t (927)= 3.15, p=0.75].
Therefore, no differences were found between academics with or without a
management position, in regards to their satisfaction with operating conditions.
Furthermore, the current studys finding were dissimilar with the outcome of
Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees in Isfahan
230
University Hospitals in Iran, where academics who were appointed to be the
managers showed less satisfaction towards operating condition than their employees.
The quantitative finding in the survey is consistent with the responses given by the
respondents in the qualitative study where some of them among those with a
management position and those without a management position, mentioned that they
are dissatisfied with operating conditions (see page 207). This might be so because
academics in both of the categories work in the same universitys setting of operation
such as the responsibility to handle lectures and doing research.
Table 6.9: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Operating Conditions among
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Levenes test of
Do not hold a Hold a for equality of means
management management variance
position position df
Operating
2.49 0.80 2.50 0.82 0.004 0.95 927 3.15 0.75
Condition
6.2.4 Summary of Key Findings on Operating Conditions Satisfaction
In a nutshell, a low level of satisfaction with operating conditions had been shown by
the majority of respondents in the qualitative study. These dissatisfactions came from
both groups of academics in the management level and operational level.
Furthermore, three focal specific issues pertaining to operating conditions have been
raised by interview respondents. The issues were facilities at workplace, work
interruptions, and holding too many responsibilities.
A low satisfaction level towards operating conditions was also shown by
respondents in the quantitative study. The findings support the outcome of Koustelios
(2001) where teachers in Greece had low satisfaction with operating conditions.
231
More specifically in regards to satisfaction with operating conditions, older
academics were more satisfied than younger academics, and seniors were more
satisfied than juniors. As mentioned by a key-person (KP2) in the preliminary
interview, from time to time, he loves to challenge himself, and as such, he is now a
deputy vice chancellor of his university after 25 years of service. In regards to the
issue of operating condition, KP2 treated his job and his job responsibility as a
challenge no matter how hard and big it was; with lesser expectations of what could
be provided. This is an evidence of how some senior or older academics deal with
operating conditions in the workplace and they are happy with their jobs.
There were no significant differences of satisfaction with operating conditions
between males and females and between academics with and without management
position. In regards to gender differences, the current studys finding was opposite
with that of Koustelios (2001) who found significant differences between
satisfaction between male and female teachers in Greece with women were more
satisfied with their working conditions than men.
In terms of satisfaction with operating conditions among academics by those
holding a management position or not holding a management position, there was no
significant difference in scores.. This is also evidenced in the qualitative part of this
research with dissatisfactions shared by some key-persons (for instance KP5, KP6,
and KP7), those with management positions, and focus group interviewees (for
instance FG1-1, FG1-4, FG1-6, FG2-1, and FG2-3) who are academics without
management position However the current studys outcome did not support the
findings of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in their study among employees in
Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran.
6.3 Satisfaction with Co-Workers
Collegial relationships or interpersonal relations with co-workers interpreted by

Brown (2008:17) as pleasant or unpleasant interactions with persons at the same level
of the organisational hierarchy and is regarded as key to job satisfaction. Based on the
interpersonal relations among co-workers, scholars and researchers tend to justify it as
one of the critical and relevant factors that could impact on ones job satisfaction (see
Spector, 1997; Tu et al., 2005).
232
6.3.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Co-Workers
The next organisational factor that serves as one of the antecedents of university
academics satisfaction is co-workers. In each of the interview sessions held with the
entire interview respondents, a question had been asked about their general feelings of
satisfaction with co-workers. Table 6.10 presents this data.
Table 6.10: Interview respondents general satisfaction with co-workers


KP3 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP7 Satisfied
KP8 Satisfied
FG1-1 Satisfied
FG1-2 Satisfied
1 FG1-4 Satisfied
FG1-5 Dissatisfied
FG1-6 Satisfied
FG2-1 Satisfied
Focus Group
FG2-2 Dissatisfied
2
FG2-3 Dissatisfied
Based on the findings in Table 6.10, nine interview respondents responded

that they are satisfied with co-workers (KP3, KP5, KP7, KP8, FG1-1, FG1-2, FG1-4,
FG1-6, and FG2-1). Four respondents mentioned that they are dissatisfied with co-
workers and all of them were academics in focus groups (FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-2 and
FG2-3). Three key-persons gave unclear or no response towards the question (KP1,
KP2, and KP6). Therefore, evidenced by the responses given by the interview
respondents in the qualitative study, the majority of them agreed that the co-workers
factor is a positive driver towards their job satisfaction. Nevertheless, four
dissatisfaction responses could not be ignored as it was an indication that there were
233
some issues of co-workers regarded as a negative driver towards job satisfaction
among academics.
6.3.1.1 Satisfied Respondents
The satisfactions mentioned by both groups of academics who were in the

management level or in the operational level. For instance, a head of department
(KP5) asserted:
I think my relationship with other academics is very good.... it is significantly
impacted my job satisfaction (KP5- Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
A tutor (FG2-1) argued:

I love to work with the other lecturers They did not make me unhappy to
work or dissatisfied to this extent (FG2-1 Focus Group Interview, 25
October 2007).
6.3.1.2 Dissatisfied Respondents
generally satisfied with co-workers, there were also some respondents who brought up
his or her dissatisfaction in the interviews. For example, a female tutor (FG2-3)
disclosed that she was not happy with the relationship with her colleagues because of
no family spirit in her workplace.
6.3.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Pertaining to Co-Workers
Apart from the interview respondents satisfaction and dissatisfaction with co-
workers, they also raised and initiated discussions on two specific issues that
impacted on their satisfaction with co-workers. Table 6.11 represents each of the
issues of satisfaction with co-workers, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-
persons and focus groups.
Pertaining to this antecedent of job satisfaction, two central issues had been
discussed in the interviews with most of the key-persons and academics in both focus
234
group interviews. These issues are cooperation among colleagues and the nature of
constructive competition among colleagues.
As we can see, the issue of cooperation among colleagues were spoken by
almost all respondents from key-person interviews and focus group interviews, while
only two respondents initiated discussion on the issue of the nature of constructive
competition among colleagues.
The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions among respondents on both
issues and highlight key findings from each issue.
235
Table 6.11: Issues on academics satisfaction with co-workers in the qualitative study
Co-workers KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Cooperation among
X X X X X X X X X X X X
colleagues
- Nature of healthy competition
X X
236
6.3.2.1 Cooperation among colleagues
Mostly, based on their experience and preference of having a good relationship with
colleagues, eight interview respondents (KP3, KP5, KP7, KP8, FG1-2, FG1-4, FG1-6,
and FG2-1) had spoken positively that they were satisfied with the factor of
cooperation among colleagues. Several comments that accentuated this view were:
Relationship with colleagues really impacted our satisfaction... except for
those who are individualistic and dont really like to work collectively with
others. Bear in mind that in this university, we really need to work as a team
and we need to get others support, hence good relationship with colleagues
really helps to maintain our job satisfaction (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26
October 2007).
Support given by people around the workplace especially colleagues in

academic linecreate a vigorous and cheerful workplace (FG1-6 Focus
A Deputy Provost of a public university branch (KP7) asserted that good cooperation
provided by his academic staff could influence his job satisfaction. He asserted:
I could not do all my work individually. I always depend on my colleagues
help. If they do not co-operate with me, it will make me a bit dissatisfied. For
instance, we (the university management people) implemented a policy where
students need to wear a proper and smart dressing etiquette in the campus. If
my academic staff who are also my colleagues do not maintain and support
this policy, how can we successfully put into practice of this good policy? If
they do not encourage students to wear proper attire by letting them (the
students) wearing t-shirt and jeans, it undoubtedly shows that lecturers do not
co-operate with us (the university management people). I (as one of the
university management people) will then feel dishonoured (KP7 Key-person
237
Nevertheless, satisfaction with cooperation among colleagues was not shared
by several other interview respondents. In this case, four interview respondents in
focus group interviews (FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-2, and FG2-3) pointed out their
dissatisfaction which they regarded it as an issue of no family surroundings among
colleagues.
For example, their dissatisfaction was strongly expressed by a lecturer (FG2-
2) and a tutor (2-3):
In my faculty, everybody (academics) minds his or her own business. No
family surroundings. If there is any welfare problem faced by one of us,
nobody will realise it. Compared to my previous workplace, I am quite
shocked with this negative culture in the faculty (FG2-2 Focus Group
When we work with a sense of family spirit, we will strive towards the
achievement of our shared aims and vision. Honestly I admit that I am not
really satisfied with my relationship with others here and I am not happy with
it (FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25 October 2007).
So even though collegial relationship is a key towards job satisfaction, not all
respondents regarded these as positive in their university settings.
6.3.2.2 Nature of constructive competition among colleagues
One lecturer (FG1-1) had brought up an issue of competing spirit among his
colleagues. He described the issue as a positive impact towards academics
satisfaction:
the nature of competition between academic colleagues to present papers
or further studies really enhanced our job satisfaction. Whomsoever strives
and shows hard works, he will get the opportunity to do so (presents his papers
and further his study). Nobody will be exasperatedor get jealous. If they
want to show a good achievement, they will work harder. Based on my
experiences working in the previous organisations, I admit that people were
very individualistic. They work for their own success, for their own increment,
for their own promotion (FG1-1 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
238
groups, it was clear that co-workers was generally perceived as an influential factor
giving significant implications that further leads to academics job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.
Apart from the general satisfaction and dissatisfaction findings, the study also
showed that there were two specific issues being spoken of by respondents which
were perceived as important measures on academics satisfaction with co-workers.
These issues were cooperation among colleagues and the nature of constructive
competition among colleagues.
Overall satisfaction and each of the sub-issues on co-workers were either
shared or differed based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among
interview respondents, especially between management people and academics in the
operational level. These were interesting and therefore had initiated two research
respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with co-workers?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with co-workers among academics by
6.3.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with co-workers in the
quantitative study. The scale of Co-Workers Satisfaction adapted from Spector
(1997)s JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate academics
satisfaction with co-workers. Four items included in this measure reflect the general
satisfaction and key issues in the findings of interviews with key-persons and focus
groups in the qualitative study.
239
6.3.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Co-Workers
The results of each questions used in the measure are depicted in Table 6.12.
All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 31 and 33) were reverse-
coded.
Co-Workers Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 30:
I like the people I work
9 0.8 40 3.7 192 17.8 710 65.9 127 11.8
with.
(Mean= 3.84, SD=0.70)
Question 31# :
I find I have to work
harder at my job because
42 3.9 314 29.1 296 27.5 371 34.4 55 5.1
of the incompetence of
people I work with.
(Mean= 3.08, SD=0.99)
Question 32:
I enjoy my co-workers. 7 0.6 34 3.2 190 17.6 711 66.0 136 12.6
(Mean= 3.87, SD=0.69)
Question 33# :
There is too much
bickering and fighting at 69 6.4 224 20.8 284 26.3 369 34.2 132 12.2
work.
(Mean= 3.25, SD=1.11)
The majority of the respondents responded that they like the people they work
with (Question 30; f= 837, %= 77.7). Also, they found that they enjoy working with
their co-workers (Question 32; Mean= 3.87, SD= 0.69). The answer given by
respondents for these two questions showed that mostly, co-workers are regarded as
those who contributed so much towards academics job satisfaction.
On the other hand, respondents were moderately satisfied when they need to
work harder because of the incompetence of their co-workers (Question 31; Mean=
3.08, SD= 0.99). Although most of the academics regarded co-workers as a factor that
240
contributed to satisfaction, nearly one third of the respondents thought that their co-
workers are incapable of getting jobs done, and they have no choice other than to
multiply their work effort.
Respondents were also responded that the working atmosphere at their
workplace were fine with not much bickering and fighting among co-workers
(Question 33, Mean=3.25, SD=1.11). However, the fact that 293 respondents (27.2%)
argued that they agreed and agreed very much that there was too much bickering and
fighting at workplace cannot be ignored. This finding mirrored that not all academics
thought of co-workers as an indicator towards happiness in the workplace, and
clashes and misunderstanding can always happen among colleagues at workplace.
Based on the findings in Table 6.12, a further analysis was undertaken to
investigate the overall level of satisfaction with co-workers. The result shows that the
quantitative study respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers
(Mean= 3.51, SD=0.62). This finding supports the outcome of Ghazi et al. (2010),
where university teachers in the North West frontier province of Pakistan had a
moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. The current studys finding also
reiterates the findings of Oshagbemi (1997) who found higher education institution
academics in the UK had a moderate level of co-workers satisfaction. Conversely, this
is different with the finding of Akpofure et al. (2006) among educators in Nigeria and
with the finding of Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane (1999) among academics in
traditional Scottish Universities, where they found that their respondents had a high
level of satisfaction with co-workers.
Subsequently, the findings of the quantitative study supported the outcomes of
the qualitative study that the co-workers factor was perceived by some academics as
an important antecedent towards satisfaction and dissatisfaction for some others. It
was also revealed that co-workers satisfaction was an important antecedent of job
satisfaction among academics. This finding also supports the outcome of Tu et al.
(2005) where they found that interactions with co-workers is found to be the most
important variable of job satisfaction in their study among academics in Taiwan and
China.
241
Gender
Table 6.13 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with co-workers among
academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in
[Mean=3.41, SD=0.62; t (1041)= 4.72, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that male
academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of co-workers compared to female
academics. The finding is different to Ward-Warmedinger and Sloanes (1999) and
Saygi et al.s (2011), findings among academics in Scottish universities and Turkish
universities where females have a higher level of satisfaction with colleagues than
males.
Table 6.13: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by
Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-

Group Levenes test tailed)
equality
for equality of
Male Female of
variance df
(n=533) (n=510) means
Variable
Co-Workers 3.59 0.61 3.41 0.62 0.12 0.73 1041 4.72 0.00**
Note: n=total respondents, M=Mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
6.3.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Age
Table 6.14 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with co-workers
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with co-workers
242
Table 6.14: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among
Academics by Age
Between Groups 8.81 4 2.20 5.597 0.00**
Total 365.06 909
co-workers among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction was shown by the group of 46 to 55 years old (M=3.71,
SD=0.68), while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old
(M=3.43, SD=0.63). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that
academics between 46 to 55 years old were significantly have higher mean of
satisfaction compared to those between 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No
Table 6.15: Post-Hoc Analysis for Co-Workers among Academics

by Age
Age n Mean SD 25 & 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 &
Groups under over
25 & under 47 3.49 0.45 -
26-35 442 3.43 0.63 NS -
36-45 255 3.49 0.62 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.71 0.68 NS * * -
56 & over 24 3.64 0.63 NS NS NS NS -

This might be so because, older academics have a longer experience working

with others and that experience taught them on judging the significant contribution of
their colleagues towards their own job satisfaction. Evidenced by responses given by
several senior academics in the qualitative study, they were inclined to talk about
their satisfaction with co-workers based on their own vast working experience. For
243
instance, a senior lecturer (KP3) asserted that based on her experience working as an
academic, good relationship among colleagues really impacted her satisfaction
specifically and the academics generally (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26 October
2007).
6.3.3.4 Differences in Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by Tenure
Table 6.16 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with co-workers
among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=1.72, p=0.16]. Hence, there is no difference of
satisfaction with co-workers between different subgroups of tenure. This finding is a
significant and important attempt on improving the work of Hunt and Saul (1975) and
Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006) in investigating the differences of satisfaction with
co-workers by different groups of tenure in the current university.
Table 6.16: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 2.05 3 0.68 1.72 0.16
Total 359.87 901

Management Position
Table 6.17 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with co-workers among
academics by either holding management position or not. T-test results indicated that
there was no significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management
position (M=3.48, SD=0.61) and academics that do not hold a management position
[M=3.52, SD=0.66; t (927)= 0.85, p=0.40]. The finding opposes the outcome of Rad
244
and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees were significantly less satisfied with
co-workers compared to senior managers, middle managers, and first line managers.
Table 6.17: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Co-Workers among Academics by
Management Position
Group t-test for
equality
Levenes test of
position position
Variable (n=376) (n=553) df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Co-Workers 3.52 0.66 3.48 0.61 3.36 0.67 927 0.85 0.40
Note: n=total respondents, M= mean, SD=standard deviation, F= Value for Levenes test for
6.3.4 Summary of Key Findings on Co-Workers Satisfaction
All in all, a state of satisfaction with co-workers is shown by most of the respondents
in the qualitative study. This was shared among those who were academics in the
management level and operational level. However, there were also some of the
academics in the operational level who responded that were dissatisfied with the co-
workers factor.
Apart from that, there were two main issues initiated and discussed among the
interview respondents in regards to satisfaction with co-workers, which were
cooperation among colleagues and the nature of constructive competition among
colleagues.
Based on the findings in the quantitative study, respondents showed a
moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. This finding supports the outcome of
Ghazi et al. (2010), where university teachers in the North West frontier province of
Pakistan had a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers. The current studys
finding also reiterates the findings of Oshagbemi (1997) who found higher education
institution academics in the UK had a moderate level of co-workers satisfaction.
Conversely, this is different with the finding of Akpofure et al. (2006) among
educators in Nigeria and with the finding of Ward-Warmedinger and Sloane (1999)
245
among academics in traditional Scottish Universities, where they found that their
respondents had a high level of satisfaction with co-workers. Evidenced from the
comparisons with the findings in the past studies, it is obvious that co-workers is not a
factor that is based on national context. Based on the findings in the qualitative study,
mixed commentaries of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among academics are
demonstrate that satisfaction with co-workers is derived from the relationship and
connection between the academic staff members. For instance, a key-person (KP3)
asserted that relationships with the other academics in the university really impacted
his satisfaction,. He added that academic staff members should work as a team and
need to support each other, hence, good relationship will help maintain high job
satisfaction.
Moreover, pertaining to satisfaction with co-workers, males were more
satisfied than females and the finding is different to Ward-Warmedinger and Sloanes
(1999) and Saygi et al.s (2011), findings among academics in Scottish universities
and Turkish universities where females have a higher level of satisfaction with
colleagues than males. The current study finding shows the impact of Malaysian
context that is different to the culture of the other countries. In this context it may be
that males have better relationships with higher status workers, or have less family
work conflict or have better opportunities for promotion and hence are not so
concerned about co-workers as a threat..
Older academics were also more satisfied with their co-workers than younger
academics. This might be so because, older academics have a longer experience
working with others and that experience taught them to see co-workers as colleagues
rather than threats. . Evidenced by responses given by several senior academics in
the qualitative study, they were inclined to talk about their satisfaction with co-
workers based on their own vast working experience. For instance, a senior lecturer
(KP3) asserted that based on her experience working as an academic, good
relationship among colleagues really impacted her satisfaction specifically and the
academics generally (KP3 Key-person Interview, 26 October 2007).
There was no significant difference between senior and junior academics in
terms of satisfaction with co-workers. This finding is significant and is an important
attempt to build on the work of Hunt and Saul (1975) and Rad and Yarmohammadian
(2006) in investigating the differences of satisfaction with co-workers by different
246
groups of tenure. Furthermore, this finding addressed the gap between satisfaction
with co-workers and tenure in the Malaysian context.
Finally, there was no significant difference of satisfaction with co-workers
between those with and without management position. This finding differs to the
outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where academics in the lower rank of
the organisational hierarchy, were significantly less satisfied with co-workers
compared to their senior managers, middle managers, and first line managers. In
regards to the current studys finding, these similar results confirm those found in the
qualitative parts of the study. As KP3 asserted in the key-person interview, those
people who are individualistic and do not really like to work collectively with others
is a factor that impeding job satisfaction among the other academics. He added that
everybody should work collectively, support each other, and create a good teamwork
spirit among each other.
6.4 Satisfaction with the Nature of Work
6.4.1 Qualitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with the Nature of Work

university academics satisfaction is nature of work. Spector (1996) described
satisfaction with the nature of work as satisfaction with the type of work done. In each
of the interview sessions held with the entire group of interview respondents, a
question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with the nature of
work. These answers were coded based on whether they spoke of these in terms of
satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; or no response was
given or it was unclear. Table 6.18 below presents this data.
247
Table 6.18: Interview respondents general satisfaction with nature of work
KP1 Satisfied
KP3 Satisfied
Key-person KP4 -
KP5 Satisfied
KP6 Dissatisfied
KP7 Satisfied
FG1-1 Unclear Response
Focus Group FG1-3 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied
1 FG1-4 Satisfied
FG1-6 Satisfied
Focus Group
2
FG2-3 Satisfied
Based on the findings in Table 6.18, seven interview respondents responded

that they are satisfied with the nature of work (KP1, KP5. KP7, FG1-4, FG1-6, and
FG2-3). For instance, a tutors argument was made clearly about this matter:
One of the factors that really make me satisfied is the job itself. As a lecturer,
it is my responsibility to deliver knowledge and share it with others especially
my students. To work as a lecturer really makes me satisfied (FG1-4 Focus
Five respondents mentioned that they are neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
(KP2, KP8, FG1-3, FG1-5, FG2-1). Only one respondent (KP6) responded that he is
dissatisfied with the nature of work at his university and three respondents gave an
unclear response or no response at all (FG1-1, FG1-2, and FG2-2).
Therefore, evidenced by the responses given by the interview respondents in
the qualitative study, a lot of them believed that nature of work contributes to their job
satisfaction, while some did not really know whether or not nature of work contributes
towards their job satisfaction. These are mixed views on nature of work shared by
them where some spoke positively while the others negatively.
248
6.4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Regarding to the Nature of
Work Satisfaction
Apart from their general state of satisfaction with the nature of work, the interview
respondents also raised and initiated discussions on several important key issues that
impacted on their satisfaction with the nature of work.
Table 6.19 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with the nature
of work, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-persons and focus groups. These
issues were segregated based on keywords and key points of satisfaction with the
nature of work.
Three major issues were spoken of by the interview respondents. As shown in
Table 6.19, the issues were the job itself, the student factor, and the nature of teaching
and research. There were several key-points revealed based on the responses given by
key-persons and focus group members. In the issue of the job itself, five academics
from the focus group interviews had gave their opinions and explanations, compared
to only two key-persons who responded towards the issue.
Equally, academics from both groups of management people and academics in
the operational level responded towards the other two issues of students factor and
the nature of teaching & research. The next sub-sections draw in-depth discussions
among respondents on both issues and highlight key findings from each issue.
249
Table 6.19: Issues on academics satisfaction with the nature of work in the qualitative study
The nature of work KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- The job itself
X X X X X X X
- Students factor
X X X X X X X X X
- The nature of teaching &
research X X X X
250
6.4.2.1 The job itself
As mentioned by the respondents, the issue of the job itself was agreed to be
an important facet of their job satisfaction. Several respondents (FG1-1, FG1-4 and
FG2-2) believed that this factor contributed to their satisfaction, as FG1-4 put it
this job (being an academic) is incomparable (FG1-4 Focus Group Interview, 26
October 2007). However, a university branchs provost (KP6) accentuated his
dissatisfaction with this factor:
I am not satisfied. dissatisfied with my teaching and learning responsibility
because I cant put my full focus towards it (KP6 Key-person Interview, 1
November 2007).
KP6 believed that his function as an academic has been shadowed off with the
management responsibility that he has to carry out. Hence, in these two cases as
spoken of previously, this dissatisfaction is linked to too many responsibilities and the
conflict with their academic roles.
6.4.2.2 Students factor
Several interview respondents confessed that they enjoy the moments when
their students were visibly attracted to their teaching (KP3, KP5, KP7, FG1-1, FG1-2,
FG1-3 and FG2-3). The view is robustly expressed by a tutor (FG2-3) as follows:
My experience as tutor is not so wide compared to others (in the university
but I can feel the total satisfaction when my students give positive reflections
upon my lectures. It shows that they enjoy my classes and it really makes me
happy... like, mission accomplished! (FG2-3 Focus Group Interview, 25
October 2007).
Others in the interviews who responded to this issue (KP8 and FG2-1) thought
that students academic achievement is a driver towards their satisfaction. An
associate professor depicted this in her statement:
251
I do think my satisfaction is caused more from students success and
achievement. If my students are collectively excellent, I will be happy and
satisfied. If they are not excellent in their study, I will be concerned whether it
is because of my poor teaching or the students themselves are not good
enough? If my students achievements are good, I will be very happy, proud
and feel like I have achieved something in my career (KP8 Key-person
6.4.2.3 The Nature of Teaching and Research
Four interview respondents responded on the influence of teaching and

research towards job satisfaction. A dean of a faculty (KP1) asserted that teaching is a
critical element to measure an academic staffs achievement and in the same time
could contribute to his or her satisfaction. As she argued:
I really think that teaching is the most influencing factor towards job
satisfaction. It is because through teaching process, an academic could
implement all the knowledge he or she has to be delivered and shared with the
students. Teaching is a critical element as a benchmark of an academics
performance. I really think that this element always giving high satisfaction to
academics (KP1 Key-person Interview, 23 October 2007).
KP1s arguments were supported by what a male lecturer mentioned:

Satisfaction for me is also in teaching, especially when I managed to complete
the syllabus for some subject (FG2-2 Focus Group Interview, 25 October
2007).
While KP1 and FG2-2 argued that teaching impacted academics job
satisfaction, a program coordinator cum associate professor (KP8) believed that
conducting research is the most satisfying element:
I think doing research is the most satisfying task to do. When we conduct any
research, we could understand the reality of the world through the research
findings. In the same time we gain new knowledge, whether it against or
support our theory and hypotheses (KP8 Key-person Interview, 1 November
2007).
252
A lecturer (FG1-5) expressed her satisfaction with both teaching and conducting
research. She elaborated:
Teaching and conducting research are two main tasks that satisfy me. When
my research outcomes could contribute anything to the others and my lectures
could guide my students to be a better person, I will be very happy (FG1-5
groups, it was clear that the nature of work was generally perceived as an influential
factor and giving significant implications that further leads to academics job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Apart from the general satisfactions and dissatisfactions findings, the study
also showed that there were three specific issues being spoken of by respondents
which were perceived as important measures on academics satisfaction with the
nature of work. These issues were the job itself, student factor, and the nature of
teaching and research.
Overall satisfaction and each of sub-issues on the nature of work were either
shared or differed based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among
interview respondents, especially between management people and academics in the
operational level. These were interesting and therefore had initiated two research
respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with the nature of work?
2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with the nature of work among
tenure incurrent university, and holding a management position or not?
253
6.4.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Nature of Work Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with the nature of work
in the quantitative study. The scale of Nature of Work Satisfaction adapted from
Spector (1997)s JSS was used in the quantitative study in order to investigate
academics satisfaction with the nature of work.
6.4.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with the Nature of Work
Responses for Question 34, the only negatively worded question to measure the
nature of work, were reverse-coded.
According to the results in the table below, strong results were shown in each
question, where tendency of answers selected by respondents skewed towards either
their agreements or disagreements. Based on Question 34, the majority of the
respondents disagree that they sometimes feel their job are meaningless (Mean= 3.82,
SD= 1.04).
Furthermore, based on Question 35, a very high number of respondents like
doing the things they do at work (f= 952, %= 88.3%). The majority of the respondents
agree that they felt a sense of pride in doing their jobs (Mean= 4.22, SD= 0.62). Most
of the respondents also thought that their jobs are enjoyable (Mean= 4.04, SD= 0.76).
Mainly, the responses for most of the questions on the nature of work provided a high
level of means which reflected a substantially high satisfaction among respondents on
this organisational antecedent.
254
Table 6.20: Frequencies and Percentages and Mean Scores for Questions on the
Nature of Work Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 34# :
I sometimes feel my job
29 2.7 134 12.4 122 11.3 505 46.8 288 26.7
is meaningless.
(Mean= 3.82, SD=1.04)
Question 35:
I like doing the things I
do at work. 10 0.9 7 0.6 109 10.1 658 61.0 294 27.3
(Mean= 4.13, SD=6.83)
Question 36:
I feel a sense of pride in
0 0.0 10 0.9 82 7.6 645 59.8 341 31.6
doing my job.
(Mean=4.22, SD=0.62)
Question 37:
My job is enjoyable. 0 0.0 36 3.3 181 16.8 562 52.1 299 27.7
(Mean= 4.04, SD=0.76)

to investigate the overall level of satisfaction with the nature of work. The result
shows that the quantitative study respondents had a high level of satisfaction with the
nature of work (Mean=4.06, SD=0.59). The findings of the quantitative study show
that academics were highly satisfied with the antecedent of the nature of work,
supporting the findings from the interviews in the qualitative analysis, where
academics were mostly satisfied with this organisational antecedent.
These findings do not support the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where he
found that university academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction
with the nature of work, specifically in teaching, research, and administration and
management. Also, the current study is contradicted with the findings of
Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) where university academics in
Bangladesh and Nigeria were dissatisfied with the nature of work at their universities.
255
6.4.3.2 Differences in Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics by
Gender
Table 6.21 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with the nature of work
among academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant
difference in scores for male academics (Mean=4.10, SD=0.57) and female academics
[Mean=3.99, SD=0.60; t (1041)= 2.80, p<0.05]. Thus, it can be concluded that the
male academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of the nature of work
compared to female academics. This finding is different with the finding by Okpara et
al. (2005) in the USA, where they found that female employees were more satisfied
with the nature of work than male employees.
Table 6.21: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics
by Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Levenes test of
for equality means
Male Female of variance
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable df
Nature of 4.10 0.57 3.99 0.60 0.03 0.87 1041 2.80 0.005**
Work
6.4.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics by Age
Table 6.22 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with the nature of
work among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with the nature of
work among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=10.64, p<0.05].
256
Table 6.22: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work
Between Groups 14.58 4 3.64 10.64 0.00**
Total 324.62 909
the nature of work among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction was scored by those who were 56 and over (M=4.46,
SD=0.46), while the lowest mean was scored by the group of 26 to 35 years old
(M=3.95, SD=0.56). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that
academics aged 56 and over were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction
compared to those of 25 and under, 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No
The current study finding supports the finding of Okpara et al. (2005) where
they found that older academics in the United States colleges and universities have a
higher level of satisfaction with the nature of work than the younger academic groups.
Table 6.23: Post-Hoc Analysis for the Nature of Work among Academics
by Age
Age Groups n Mean SD 25 & under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 & over
25 & under 47 4.05 0.64 -
26-35 442 3.95 0.56 NS -
36-45 255 4.07 0.62 NS * -
46-55 142 4.25 0.60 NS * * -
56 & over 24 4.46 0.46 * * * NS -

257
Tenure
Table 6.24 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with the nature of
work among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=10.98, p<0.05].
Table 6.24: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work
Between Groups 11.37 3 3.79 10.98 0.00**
Total 321.23 901
the nature of work among academics by tenure groups.
Table 6.25: Post-Hoc Analysis for the Nature of Work among Academics
by Tenure
10 & under 723 4.00 0.59 -
11-20 147 4.15 0.61 * -
21-30 29 4.53 0.53 * * -
31 & over 3 4.75 0.00 NS NS NS -

It is observed that the highest mean value of satisfaction scored by those who
have worked for 31 years and above (M=4.75, SD=0.00), while the lowest mean
scored by the group who have worked for 10 years and less (M=4.00, SD=0.59). Post-
hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics tenure between 21 to
30 years were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to those who
258
have worked between 11 to 20 years and 10 and under. No significant difference
existed between academics in any of the other groups of tenure.
Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) found no significant
difference of satisfaction with the nature of work among tenure groups of academics
in Bangladesh and Nigeria. Hence, the current studys findings contribute to the
literature of satisfaction with the nature of work based on different tenure group.

Management Position
Table 6.26 below shows the t-test results for satisfaction with the nature of
work among academics by either holding management position or not.
Table 6.26: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with the Nature of Work among Academics
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Levenes test of
Do not hold a Hold a
for equality of means
position position
Variable (n=376) (n=553) df
Nature of 4.05 0.62 4.04 0.57 5.48 0.02 927 0.35 0.72
Work
t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores for
do not hold a management position [M=4.05, SD=0.62; t (927)= 0.35, p=0.72]. Thus,
the conclusion is no significant difference of satisfaction in terms of the nature of
work between academics with and without management positions. The current study
finding opposes the outcomes of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where
259
employees were significantly less satisfied with nature of the job compared to senior
managers, middle managers, and first line managers in university hospitals in Iran.
6.4.4 Summary of Key Findings of the Nature of Work Satisfaction
As a summary, based on the findings of the interviews with key-persons and

academics in focus groups, most of the respondents were satisfied with the nature of
work. Three main issues related to the nature of work were the job itself, students
factor, and nature of teaching and research.
In the quantitative study, respondents showed a high level of satisfaction with
the nature of work. This supports the same findings in the qualitative study where
most of the respondents were satisfied with the nature of work. Furthermore, the
quantitative findings do oppose the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where university
academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction with the nature of
work, specifically in teaching, research, and administration and management.
Also, the findings are different to the findings of Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011)
and Adekola (2012) where university academics in Bangladesh and Nigeria were
dissatisfied with the nature of work at their universities. While the other academics in
other countries displayed low to moderate level of satisfaction with the nature of
work, the current studys finding reflects the unique culture of the workplace in the
Malaysian context. The specific issues occurred in the discussion among academics in
the qualitative study showed that Malaysian academics reflect the local culture that is
shared together among Malaysian academics.
For instance, in Malaysian culture, individualism is something that is not
welcomed in any workplace including in the higher educational setting (see Abu
Bakar, 1985, Arshad, 2007, and Chng et al., 2010), hence, academics in the
Malaysian higher education institutions are keen to work collectively. The Ministry of
Higher Education also actively promotes the culture of working collectively, when
they offered greater amount of research grant for a group of academics working
together as compared to those doing research individually (see Ministry of Higher
Education, 2012).
Next, in regards to this job satisfaction antecedent, it was found that males
were more satisfied than females. This finding is different to the finding by Okpara et
260
al. (2005), where they found that female employees were more satisfied with the
nature of work than male employees.
Subsequently, older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones.
This finding supports the finding of Okpara et al.s (2005) study among academics in
the United States of Americas colleges and universities. Senior academics were more
satisfied than juniors and this specific finding is different to those of Aktaruzzaman et
al. (2011) and Adekola (2012) where they found no significant difference of
satisfaction with the nature of work among different tenure groups of academics in
Bangladesh and Nigeria. The findings in regards to the demographic of age and tenure
reflect the reality that an academic will be more familiar with the nature of his work
when he gets older and experiences longer tenure with the workplace.
There was no significant difference of satisfaction between academics with
and without management position, and this opposes the finding of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) among employees in Iran. This may be due to the nature of
work in the university, that it is shared and experienced between both of the
academics with and without management position, and that each level of academics
feel the pressures of the changing context and heightened expectations similarly.
6.5 Communication
6.5.1 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Communication
In each of the interview sessions held with the entire interview respondents, a
question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with
communication. Table 6.27 presents this data.
Based on the findings in Table 6.27, different type of respondents interview
groups had given a unique responses based on their interview groups. All key-person
interviewees conveyed an answer of neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with the issue of
communication. All interviewees in Focus Group 2 also mentioned that they were
neither dissatisfied nor satisfied. On the other hand, all respondents in Focus Group 1
answered that they were dissatisfied with the aspect of communication.
261
Table 6.27: General Satisfaction with Communication

Key-person KP4 -
FG1-1 Dissatisfied
FG1-2 Dissatisfied
FG1-5 Dissatisfied
FG1-6 Dissatisfied
Focus Group
2
The findings reflect that communication was not a source of satisfaction at

workplace especially among academics in the operational level. Furthermore, all
academics in management level had responded that they were neither dissatisfied nor
satisfied with communication. This is a key finding in the qualitative study, and
therefore a further investigation should be undertaken to see whether or not at among
a bigger scale of respondents, the same findings will be evidenced.
6.5.2 Qualitative Study Findings: Specific Issues Related to Communication

Satisfaction
Apart from the interview respondents state of satisfaction with communication, some
of them had raised and initiated discussions on two specific issues that impacted on
their satisfaction with communication. Table 6.28 represents each of the issues of
satisfaction with communication, spoke of and discussed by interviewed key-person
and focus groups. These issues were segregated based on keywords and key points of
satisfaction with communication.
262
Communication as a factor of job dissatisfaction has been initiated by only
two interview respondents in Focus Group 1 interview (FG1-2 and FG1-5) in the
current study. Their responses can be categorised into two main themes which were
poor communication and misunderstanding among academics and administration
staff.
263
Table 6.28: Issues on academics satisfaction with communication in the qualitative study
Communication KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
- Flow of communication
X
- Interpretation of communication
between academics & X
administration staff
264
6.5.2.1 Flow of Communication
A lecturer (FG1-5) expressed her dissatisfaction with what she described as a

very poor flow of communication in her faculty and this was agreed by most of the
other respondents in the same focus group interview. Her (FG1-5) disappointment
was clearly demonstrated in her statement: I am very disappointed with the poor
communication flow and dissemination of important information in this faculty
(FG1-1, FG1-3, FG1-4, FG1-6 agreed by saying yesyesyesthats right.)
She (FG1-5) continued:
For example, in this faculty it is a nature where lecturers always get very late
information on any important occasion or meeting. This condition will then
hassle us on our tasks and even will make us penalised by the university or
faculty because of our absenteeism upon any occasion. I think that this
incompetent style of information spreading from the people who are
responsible to handle it and the faculty administrator (FG1-5 Focus Group
6.5.2.2 Interpretation of communication between academics and administration staff
A different perspective was voiced by a lecturer (respondent FG1-2), where

her dissatisfaction in terms of communication factor was more on the issue of
misunderstanding or misinterpretation among workers. Her dissatisfaction was
focused on the administration staff in her faculty:
I am so disappointed with the administration staff in the faculty. Let say,

when I ask for their help on preparing lecture documents, or teaching aids, or
asking for stationeries that I need to use for lectures (She snapped her
fingers) automatically, they will think that I am directing them or my words
are too harsh. This is nonsense! They misinterpreted me as being rude
265
From the findings of the interviews with key-persons and academics in the
focus groups, it was evidenced that communication was generally perceived as an
influential factor and giving significant implications that further leads to academics
job satisfaction. The study showed that there was generally a moderate level of
satisfaction being argued of by most of the respondents in regards to communication
(see Table 6.27). In another sense, it cannot be ignored that there were also
dissatisfactions raised among academics in the operational level towards
communication where two respondents-each from management and operational level-
had explained their dissatisfaction. Another key finding based on the qualitative study
was none of the respondents were satisfied with the aspect of communication.
There were two specific issues in terms of communication satisfaction
initiated by two respondents. Even though these issues were raised by a very small
number of respondents in the interview, it was perceived as significant and vital
evidences to explain more on the aspect of communication.
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to the satisfaction with
communication among academics in higher education had initiated two research
respondents:
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with communication?

2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with communication among
6.5.3 Quantitative Study Findings on Communication Satisfaction
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with communication in

the quantitative study. The scale of Communication Satisfaction was used in the
quantitative study in order to investigate academics satisfaction with communication.
Four items included in this measure were adapted from Spector (1997)s JSS
questions which measure communication satisfaction.
266
6.5.3.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Communication
All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 39, 40 and 41) were reverse-coded.
Satisfaction with Communication (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question
f % f % f % f % f %
Question 38:
Communications seem
good with this 43 4.0 152 14.1 252 23.4 569 52.8 62 5.8
organisation.
(Mean= 3.42, SD=0.94)
Question 39# :
The goals of this
organisation are not 54 5.0 223 20.7 175 16.2 537 49.8 89 8.3
clear to me.
(Mean= 3.36, SD=1.05)
Question 40# :
I often feel that I do not
know what is going on 62 5.8 244 22.6 223 20.7 466 43.2 83 7.7
with the organisation.
(Mean=3.24, SD=1.07)
Question 41# :
Work assignments are
70 6.5 277 25.7 242 22.4 384 35.6 105 9.7
not fully explained.
(Mean= 3.16, SD=1.11)
Respondents moderately agreed that communications seem good within their

organisations (Question 38; Mean= 3.42, SD= 0.94). They also moderately agree that
the goals of their organisations are clear to them (Question 39; Mean= 4.13, SD=
6.83). In Question 40, respondents mostly agreed that they feel that they know what is
going on with the organisation (f= 466, %= 43.2). Respondents also mostly agreed
that work assignments are fully explained to them (f= 384, %= 35.6).
Based on the findings in Table 6.29, a further analysis was undertaken to
investigate the overall level of satisfaction with communication. The result shows that
267
respondents had a moderate level of satisfaction with communication (Mean=3.30,
SD=0.82). The findings of the quantitative study support the outcomes of the
qualitative study that communication was a perceived as a moderate driver towards
job satisfaction of academics. The findings also reiterate the outcome of Rad and
Yarmohammadian (2006) where the employees in University Hospitals in Isfahan,
Iran have a moderate level of satisfaction with communication.

Gender
Table 6.30 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with communication among
academics by gender. t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in
[Mean=3.23, SD=0.79; t (1041)= 2.18, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that male
academics are significantly more satisfied in terms of communication compared to
female academics.
Table 6.30: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by
Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group Levenes test tailed)
equality
for equality
Male Female of
of variance
(n=533) (n=510) df means
Variable
Communication 3.34 0.86 3.23 0.79 3.68 0.06 1041 2.18 0.03**
Investigation on the relationship between communication satisfaction among

academics in a range of countries by various demographic variables have been done
by several researchers. For instance, Aktaruzzaman et al. (2011) among university
academics in Bangladesh, Brown (2008) among academics in Northern Caribbean
University in Jamaica, and Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among academics in Malaysian
universities. The current study extends the past research studies by exploring the
268
differences of satisfaction with communication among different subgroups of gender,
age, tenure in organisation, and management position.
6.5.3.3 Differences in Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by Age
Table 6.31: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Communication

Between Groups 16.72 4 4.18 6.07 0.00**
Total 639.54 909
Table 6.31 above shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with
communication among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that
there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with
communication among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=6.07, p<0.05].
communication among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of satisfaction scored by those who were between 46 and 55 years old (M=3.62,
SD=0.91), while the lowest mean scored by the group of 25 and under (M=3.22,
SD=0.61).

Academics by Age
Age Groups n Mean SD 25 & under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 & over
(years)
25 & under 47 3.22 0.61 -
26-35 442 3.24 0.80 NS -
36-45 255 3.23 0.87 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.62 0.91 * * * -
56 & over 24 3.30 0.73 NS NS NS NS -

269
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics between
46 to 55 years old were significantly have higher mean of satisfaction compared to
those of 25 and under, 26 to 35 years old and 36 to 45 years old. No significant
difference existed between academics in any of the other groups of age.

Tenure
Table 6.33 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with
communication among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that
there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction among
the four different tenure groups [F(3, 898)=4.57, p<0.05].
Table 6.33: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Communication

Between Groups 9.56 3 3.19 4.57 0.003**
Total 636.12 901
communication among academics by tenure groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction scored by those who have worked between 21 to 30 years
(M=3.68, SD=0.90), while the lowest mean scored by the group who have worked for
10 years and less (M=3.26, SD=0.83). Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test
indicated that academics tenure between 21 to 30 years had significantly higher mean
of satisfaction compared to those who have worked between 11 to 20 years and 10
and under. No significant difference existed between academics in any of the other
groups of age.
270
Academics by Tenure
10 & under 723 3.26 0.83 -
11-20 147 3.46 0.87 * -
21-30 29 3.68 0.90 * NS -
31 & over 3 3.50 0.00 NS NS NS -


Management Position
Table 6.35 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with communication among
academics by either holding management position or not. t-test results indicated that
there was a significant difference in scores for academics that hold a management
position (M=3.22, SD=0.85) and academics that do not hold a management position
[M=3.43, SD=0.80; t (927)= 3.78, p<0.05].
Table 6.35: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Communication among Academics by
Management Position
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
equality tailed)
Levenes test of
management management df
variance
Variable position position
(n=376) (n=553)
Communication 3.43 0.80 3.22 0.85 1.42 0.23 927 3.78 0.00**
Thus, the conclusion is academics without management positions were

significantly more satisfied in terms of communication than academics with
management positions. This particular finding opposes the findings in the qualitative
271
study where most of the respondents in the operational level dissatisfied with
communication. The findings in the quantitative study also not reiterate the findings
of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees in the operational level were
significantly less satisfied with communication compared to senior managers, middle
managers, and first line managers.
6.5.4 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Communication
All in all, based on the findings of the qualitative study with key-persons and
academics in focus groups, most of the respondents were moderately satisfied with
the communication aspect. There were two main issues raised by the respondents in
accordance to their satisfaction with communication, which were poor communication
and misunderstanding among academics and administration staff.
In the next phase of study which was the quantitative study, respondents also
showed a moderate level of satisfaction with communication. These findings support
the outcome of Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006). Looking at the dissatisfactions and
issues shared by several interviewees in the qualitative study, it is understandable why
moderate level of communication satisfaction is the result. Poor flow of
communication and misinterpretation of messages between academics and the
administration staff was spoken of as a significant issues impeding job satisfaction
among academics. Spector (1997) asserts that communication in the organisation is a
critical aspect that should be carefully promoted and monitored in any organisation;
any occurrence of communication breakdown among the members in the
organisation, will influence the way how each person interact with each other and
how important information is shared among them. It will then influence the attitude
and behaviour of each person in the organisation, including the level of job
satisfaction.
Then, males were more satisfied with communication than females.
Evidenced in the qualitative study, most of female academics shared their
dissatisfaction with communication compared to the male academics. Subsequently
the quantitative study with a bigger scale of respondents, confirmed this pattern. In
regards with the Malaysian context, the current study finding reiterates the outcomes
of Alam and Mohammad (2010), Chng et al. (2010) and Mohd Noor (2004), where
272
Malaysian male workers have a greater satisfaction with communication than female
workers. It may be because males are treated with higher levels of responsibility and
so are included in the communication flow and processes moreso.
Also, in the current study, it was found that older academics were more
satisfied than the younger counterparts, and senior academics were more satisfied than
juniors. Again, it can be said that when academics became older and had a longer
tenure in the university, they also may be included moreso that their junior
counterparts. In addition their maturity and understanding may have contributed to
their satisfaction as these academics regarded conflicts in regards to communication
to be something positive, rather than as a negative or hindrance and hence see it as a
source of creativity in doing their daily tasks at the workplace (Mohd Noor, 2004).
those with academic position. The current studys finding seems to be different
compared to Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), where employees in the operational
level were significantly less satisfied with communication compared to senior
managers, middle managers, and first line managers.
As mentioned in the preceding subsections, the current study extends the work
of Hunt and Saul (1975) by exploring the differences of satisfaction with
communication among different demographic subgroups of gender, age, tenure, and
management position. These findings regarded as a significant contribution towards
the body of knowledge in job satisfaction especially in research among academics in
Malaysian public higher education institutions.
6.6 Conclusion
This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with key-person and focus
groups in regard to satisfaction of organisational antecedents of operating condition,
co-workers, the nature of work, and communication. Secondly, the findings of the
qualitative study were then compared with the findings in the quantitative study
pertaining to satisfaction of academics towards all organisational antecedents.
Several key issues had been initiated and discussed thoroughly by the
interview respondents apart from their general satisfaction with several of the
organisational antecedents. In each key issue discussed by the interview respondents,
some lead to satisfaction and some dissatisfaction.
273
there were differences of responses of each of the organisational antecedents by
respondents based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. They were
age, gender, tenure in current university and whether one holds a management
position or not. Summary for the findings on the investigated organisational
antecedents of job satisfaction in this chapter were depicted in Table 6.36 below.
274
Table 6.36: Summary for the Findings on Satisfaction with Organisational Antecedents of operating Conditions, Co-Workers, the Nature of
Work and Communication

Organisational (n=17) (n=1078)
Antecedent Overall Arising Issues Overall Gender Age Tenure Hold Management
Satisfaction Satisfaction Position or Not
Operating Mostly were 1. Dissatisfactions came from both Low No No significant
Conditions dissatisfied academics in management and in (Mean= 2.51, significant Older Senior difference in
(9 respondents) operational level SD=0.82) difference in academics were academics satisfaction with
satisfaction more satisfied were more operating
2.Specific issues raised: with satisfied conditions
- Facilities at workplace operating
- Uninterrupted working conditions conditions
Co-Workers Most were 1.Satisfaction was shared by both Moderate No No significant

satisfied groups of academics in management (Mean= 3.51, Males were Older significant difference in
(9 respondents) and operational level SD= 0.62) more academics were difference in satisfaction with
satisfied than more satisfied satisfaction co-workers
2. Some academics in the operational females with co-
level were dissatisfied workers
3. Specific issues raised:

- Cooperation among colleagues
- The nature of constructive
competition among colleagues
275
The Nature of Most of them 1. Satisfactions came from both High No significant
Work were satisfied academics in management and (Mean= 4.06, Males were Older Senior difference in
(7 respondents) operational level SD= 0.59) more academics were academics satisfaction with
followed by satisfied than more satisfied were more the nature of work
some who were 2. Specific issues raised: females satisfied
neither - The job itself
dissatisfied nor - Students factor
satisfied - Nature of teaching and research
(5 respondents)
Communication Majority were 1. None of the respondents were Moderate
neither satisfied (Mean= 3.30, Males were Older Senior Academics without
dissatisfied nor SD= 0.82) more academics were academics management
satisfied 2. All respondents in management satisfied than more satisfied were more position were more
(10 respondents) level were neither dissatisfied nor females satisfied satisfied
and satisfied
the rest were
dissatisfied 3. Dissatisfactions came from
(6 respondents) academics in the operational level

- Poor communication
- Misunderstanding among
academics and administration staff
276
In summary, based on the results depicted in Table 6.36 there were several key
findings revealed in this chapter through the qualitative study and quantitative study.
Firstly, all of the investigated antecedents arising from the literature that led to
academics satisfaction were confirmed through the qualitative study. These were
then confirmed in the quantitative study as important considerations in satisfaction
with organisational antecedents.
Secondly, there were different type of ideas and issues identified by the
interview respondents on the antecedents of operating conditions, co-workers, the
nature of work, and communication. Thirdly, academics in the qualitative study
generally have a moderate level of satisfaction with co-workers and communication,
low satisfaction with operating condition, and high satisfaction with the nature of
work. Interestingly, academics in the quantitative study supported the findings from
the qualitative study.
Fourthly, some discussions and arguments spoken of by all interview
respondents differed based on several categories of demographic backgrounds. These
obviously differed among academics in management level versus academics in
operational level and between senior academics and junior academics. Further
investigations were undertaken in the quantitative study to reveal any differences in
satisfaction with all the organisational antecedents by different type of demographic
backgrounds.
Additionally, the selection of demographic backgrounds to be included in the
online study was based on the vast literature and past research. The specific results on
differences in satisfaction by different categories of age, gender, tenure and whether
one holds a management position or not, can be found in Table 6.36.
Next, Chapter 7 will discuss the satisfaction with work-life balance using the
findings of the qualitative study and quantitative study. Chapter 8 explores these
antecedents and their effects on academics overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave proposing a comprehensive model of interrelationships between all antecedents.
277
Chapter 7
SATISFACTION WITH WORK-LIFE BALANCE
7.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines satisfaction with work-life balance based on interviews with
key-persons and focus groups from three public universities in November and
December 2007. This chapter also details the findings of the quantitative study
completed by academics from three participating public universities between
November 2008 and March 2009.
The aims for the first part of this chapter were first, to understand respondents
impressions and satisfaction with work-life balance through a qualitative method and
then to investigate differences based on respondents demographic backgrounds. The
aim for the second part - conducted through a quantitative method of data collection -
was to further investigate a bigger scale of respondents. The study also aims to
investigate differences in satisfaction with work-life balance among academics by
different type of demographic backgrounds.
Work-life balance satisfaction is an antecedent of academics job satisfaction
and this chapter focuses on and explores this antecedent. In the next chapters, the
study expands on this and tests the relationship between satisfaction with work-life
balance and consequent variables like overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave.
The chapter is structured in three sections. First, the general feelings of
satisfaction with the work-life balance of interview respondents are detailed.
Secondly, issues that are raised by all interview respondents regarding satisfaction
with work-life balance are elaborated. Section Three presents descriptive findings of
the quantitative study in regards to academics satisfaction with work-life balance.
The organisation of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 7.1 below:
278
Section Description

Qualitative Study Findings: study specifically on general satisfaction with the
General Satisfaction work-life balance satisfaction.
7.3 The section describes the qualitative study findings

Qualitative Study Findings: on several issues initiated related to satisfaction with
Key issues pertaining to work- the government and universities policies and
life balance support.
7.4
The section elaborates the findings of the
Quantitative Study Findings
quantitative study.
7.5
Conclusion The section summarizes key findings from both the
qualitative study and quantitative study and
concludes the chapter.
7.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance has important consequences for employee attitudes towards their
organisations as well as for the lives of employees (Scholarios & Marks, 2004:54).
Guest (2002:256) believes that work-life balance influences the well-being and job
outcomes of employees at work such as job satisfaction. Based on the
recommendations from past research, this chapter will investigate the state of work-
life balance satisfaction and its influence on academics job satisfaction.
This section describes the findings of the qualitative study pertaining to
general satisfaction of academics to work-life balance. In each of the interview
sessions, a question had been asked about their general feelings of satisfaction with
work-life balance.
These answers were coded based on whether they spoke of these in terms of
satisfaction; dissatisfaction; neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; or no response was
given or it was unclear. Table 7.1 presents this data.
279
Table 7.1: General Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
KP1 Satisfied
KP2 Satisfied
KP3 Satisfied
Key-person
KP4 -
KP6 Satisfied
KP7 Satisfied
KP8 Satisfied
FG1-2 Dissatisfied
1 FG1-4 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied
Focus Group
2
According to the findings in Table 7.1, after excluding KP4, six key-persons
(KP1, KP2, KP3, KP6, KP7, and KP8) mentioned that they were satisfied with the
work-life balance factor. Interestingly, none of the academics in focus groups
mentioned that they were satisfied with work-life balance, five of them (FG1-1, FG1-
4, FG1-5, FG2-1, and FG2-3) are neither dissatisfied nor satisfied and two are
dissatisfied (FG1-2 and FG1-3). The other two respondents gave an unclear or no
response at all.
In these particular interview findings, most of the management people
acknowledged that work-life balance is a source of satisfaction. On the other hand,
none of the respondents in focus groups who were at the operational level in their
universities responded that they were satisfied.
280
7.2.1 Satisfied Respondents
Six of the respondents answered that they were satisfied with the aspect and
policy of work-life balance practised by their universities (KP1, KP2, KP3, KP6, KP7
and KP8). A deputy provost of a university (KP7) for instance said that he is satisfied
with the issue of work-life balance. He further shared his own practice of balancing
between workplaces needs and personal lifes needs:
I believe in the principle of All work and no play make Jack a Dull Boy.
Work and life must be balanced because I like to do my hobbies apart from my
daily job as a lecturer. There are some of us who love to work, do overtime
work and going back home also with a bundle of unfinished work. I love to
spend my time with family and enjoy outdoor activities like fishing, golfing,
travelling and so on. My wife and I will make sure that every year we will
bring our kids to travel anywhere. This balance between life and work is a
must not only for lecturers but also for all types of job. It will help in creating
job satisfaction (KP7 Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
Another top level management person, a deputy vice chancellor (KP2) proudly shared
that he had successfully been juggling with the issue of work -life balance:
Between personal life and work, I dont think I am prone to one of it and I am
still able to balance both factors and maintain my job satisfaction. Instead of a
good practice of work-life balance policy in a university, one also must be
clever enough to balance priority for both work and life(KP2 Key-person
A program coordinator (KP8) highlighted his satisfaction with the issue of work-life
balance when he said:
Lately, I always get home very late.... But I still can manage my family affairs
and I am so sure that I satisfied with my job. No negative feedback or
comments heard from my family members or from the university
management. The ultimate reason is ourselves, how we juggle both sides
(work and life) efficiently (KP8 Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
281
7.2.2 Dissatisfied Respondents
There were two respondents who mentioned that they were dissatisfied with
the aspect of work-life balance (FG1-2 and FG1-3). For instance, a female tutor (FG2-
1) argued:
If only I can have 34 hours in one day, I am sure I can be a better mum...(she
laughed, then sighed)... The reality is most of my time was spent for office
work. The dean (and university management) should have a look into the other
side of her staff members lives... we have families. But, what can I do, I am
only an ordinary staff... she is the boss (FG2-1 - Focus Group Interview, 25
October 2007).
Similarly, a female lecturer (FG1-2) expressed her dissatisfaction with the

practice of work life balance policy in her university:
How disappointed I was when there were several occasions that required us
(the academics) to come over to the office in the weekends just to finish
unimportant work! I still remember a couple of months ago, all of a sudden,
the faculty decided to have a house-keeping program on Saturday, and I have
no other choice rather than cancelling my familys program! (She looked so
emotional when she spoke). Can we just have that program anytime in
weekdays? You (the faculty management) have five working days to choose
(rather than Saturday and Sunday)! (FG1-2 Focus Group Interview, 26
October 2007).
These arguments are manifestations of general dissatisfactions towards the

issue of work-life balance among staff in the operational level. The tutor (FG2-1)
intrinsically stated her desire to give more focus towards her family, but she could not
do so because of the responsibilities she has at her workplace and towards her
superior- in her case, the dean.
However, she seemed to hide her dissatisfaction without showing any further
emotional statements. This was different with the female lecturer (FG1-2) who had
emotionally argued the relevance of attending her faculty occasion while she was
supposed to be with her family.
282
Interestingly the interviews revealed that respondents who were satisfied with
the aspect of work-life balance were those among the top management side.
Additionally, none of the academics in focus groups responded positively. It clearly
reflected that people who hold management position thought that they had a balance
of time and responsibilities between work and life, but most people at the operational
level in the universities thought the other way around.
Another vital finding was that the differences of work-life balance satisfaction
were not clearly portrayed between male and female academics. It seems to be related
to individual academic himself juggle between the needs of work and the needs of
personal life. This is in accordance to the mixed responses given among different
gender both in key-person interviews and focus group interviews.
Finally, work-life balance is clearly a pertinent issue which can affect
employees attitudes particularly job satisfaction. This was mentioned by a female
tutor (FG2-3) where work and life have great impacts towards her job satisfaction.
7. 3 Qualitative study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Work-Life Balance
Apart from the interview respondents general satisfaction with work-life balance,
they had also initiated discussions on several important issues that impacted on their
satisfaction in this dimension. These issues were working overtime and on weekends,
family support, and impact of work towards life and vice versa. These issues are
discussed in the next section of the chapter.
Table 7.2 below represents each of the issues of satisfaction with work-life
balance spoken of and discussed by interviewed key-person and focus groups. In the
table, each interviewees response towards all topics of discussion in the interviews is
represented by X symbol.
As shown in Table 7.2, the issue of working overtime and on weekends had
been spoken of by five respondents in Focus Group 1. Only one key-person among
the management people talked on this issue. Eight key-persons and focus group
members mentioned and discussed the issue of family support. Discussions on the
issue of impacts of work towards life or vice versa caught the attention of five
interview respondents.
283
The next sub-sections draws together in-depth discussions among interview
respondents on each issue and highlights key information used to build survey
questions and hypotheses specifically on the satisfaction with work-life balance.
284
Table 7.2: Issues on academics satisfaction with work-life balance in the qualitative study
Work-Life Balance KP KP KP KP KP KP KP KP FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-3
1. Working overtime and on
weekends X X X X X X
2. Family support
X X X X X X X X
3. Impacts of work towards

life or vice versa X X X X X
285
7.3.1 Working overtime and on weekends
The top management level - via the statement of the deputy vice chancellor
(KP2) above - thought that the university provides a fair and satisfying work and life
balance policy. On the other hand, respondents who work in the operational level
(academic staff) tend to think differently. This is evidenced by the fact that almost all
respondents in Focus Group 1 Interview (except FG1-6) agreed that they are not
happy with the direction given by the management to work overtime and to work on
weekends. Their grievances were strongly expressed by respondent FG1-2:
For us the dissatisfaction is when the management asked to work on weekends.
It was a big problem for us, moreover if the direction was given at the last
minute. To work in the weekends will be a very big disturbance for me as a
housewife and a mother. I need to have some privacy or ample time to spend
with my family and have my personal good time. I am really dissatisfied with
this, seriously (FG1-2 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
Another lecturer (FG1-5) in the same focus-group interview session mentioned:

... I had enough of this! This (working on the weekends) happen every time
the university open for a new semester.. (she sighed). To some extent, I can
hear my kids sadly say dear oh dear mummy will be away again (on the
weekends) (FG1-5 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
7.3.2 Family support
Several of the interview respondents (KP5, KP8, FG1-1, FG1-6, and FG2-3)
had raised the issue of family support where they believed it is vital for them in
balancing both work and family commitment.
A lecturer (FG1-1) argued:

Family support is a vital element for my career success My responsibility is
equal between workplace and home. They (my family) must understand that I
am holding a huge responsibility to get enough money for all of us (FG1-1
286
A tutor (FG2-3) also expressed the same issue that family support is really important:
Problems at home like a fight between my husband and I should not be
brought up to my workplace. If we keep busy thinking of our family, our
house, our kids when we are working, it will be a great burden and make us
dissatisfied. We cannot focus on our lecture, our job. For me, family support
regarding on this (work and life balance) is very important and have a great
impact towards our job satisfaction and life satisfaction as well (FG2-3
As evidenced from the responses pertaining to this issue, interview

respondents regarded that family support was a pertinent factor that leads towards
their satisfaction with work-life balance and further has a positive impact towards
their organisational attitudes specifically their job satisfaction.
7.3.3 Impacts of work towards life or vice versa
Some of the interview respondents also discussed the potential impact of one
dimension towards the other in the issue of work and life balance. The deputy vice
chancellor (KP2) asserted that:
If we are able to manage all our personal business and at the same time able to
contribute substantially towards our working organisations, I guarantee that
we will get a high level of job satisfaction.... take a good care of our family
and do our job at the workplace efficiently, it will maximise our job
satisfaction (KP2 Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
KP2 further argued that he wanted to share vital guidance on attaining job satisfaction
by balancing both dimensions of work and life based on his own experience and also
based on the experiences of academic staff members in his university. He explained:
There are several prominent and quality academics we have here in this
university. As far as I concerned, they had a good approach of dividing their
attentions (responsibilities) towards the university and their own life (KP2
Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
287
The deputy provost of a university branch campus (KP7) argued extensively:
When somebody cannot afford himself to attend any university or academic
programs like a seminar or workshop and saying that he needs to focus more
on his family and personal business, it shows that he is unable to harmonise
and balance between his life and his job. If he wants to be excellent, he must
be able to do what other academics did in their career and at the same time be
able to fulfil their personal needs. For example, if an academic is focusing
more on his office work and pay no attention to his familys needs, this
reflects the dissatisfaction in terms of personal life. The same thing goes to a
person who is too concern about his personal life and could not complete most
of his responsibilities in workplace, this will affect his job satisfaction (KP7
Key-person Interview, 1 November 2007).
Two respondents (FG1-2 and FG1-3) shared their dissatisfaction with their
incapability to balance between work and life. They admitted that there were some
negative impacts of one dimension towards the other one. Their views were depicted
as below:
Yes, work and life balance is a great issue in my life. You know, when we
have a family, we need to focus on them fully no matter what it takes. In my
case, I still can not balance between my job and my family equally. Always
think about home when I am in the office, and vice versa. I hate this feeling
(He sighed) It is not easy because I tend to mix up both (work and life). For
instance, one day I have been lectured by my superiors because of my
mistakes at workplace, I cannot help myself to be very moody when I came
back home. I scolded my kids for their little mistakes, being so harsh, lazy to
do anything, and so on (FG1-3 Focus Group Interview, 26 October 2007).
The concerns of the academics in the operational level were more on their
inability to juggle between work and life. The researcher believes that this was
derived from the lack of guidance from the university and managerial people and
weaknesses of the implementation of the work-life balance policy, if there is any. For
instance, as mentioned by respondent FG1-3, his superiors never try to discuss with
288
academic staff members on the issue of work-life balance, even though it is a critical
issue among academic staff.
7.3.4 Expansion of Issues of Work-life Balance Satisfaction in the Qualitative

Study into the Quantitative study
groups, it was obvious that work-life balance was generally perceived as a key
antecedent of job satisfaction with significant implications. Apart from the general
satisfaction findings, the study also provided evidence that there were three key
findings being spoken of by respondents which were perceived as sources of
dissatisfaction in regards to work-life balance. These issues were working overtime
and on weekend, the importance of family support, and the impacts of work towards
life and vice versa.
General satisfaction with work-life balance and each of its sub-issues differed
based on different categories of demographic backgrounds among interview
respondents, particularly among academics with management positions and
academics in the operational level. These were key findings, and therefore, regarded
by the study as important dimensions of job satisfaction among academics. The
interview findings on work-life balance satisfaction then led to the next phase of data
collection- the quantitative study.
Findings in the qualitative study in regards to work-life balance satisfaction
1. What is the level of academics overall satisfaction with work-life balance?
2. Are there any differences in satisfaction with work-life balance among
289
7.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
This section describes the findings of academics satisfaction with work-life balance
in the quantitative study. The scale of Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance was used
in the quantitative study to investigate academics satisfaction with work-life balance.
This study used modified versions of the Work and Life Policy instrument proposed
by Beehr et al. (1976) and Pare et al. (2000). This instrument was comprised of 6
items which were summed together to represent each respondents perception on their
work-life balance.
were conducted to compare the differences of overall satisfaction with work-life
balance by different demographic backgrounds.
7.4.1 Academics Overall Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
To determine the level of satisfaction with work-life balance among

respondents, frequencies and percentages of responses of all respondents from the
three participating public universities were calculated and the mean and the standard
deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 7.3 presents scores for each of
the six questions on work-life balance satisfaction responded by survey respondents.
All responses for negatively worded questions (Question 43, Question 45 and
Question 46) were reverse-coded. These negative-worded questions were remained
the same as what been included in the quantitative study in order to show the norms of
the original questions.
290
Table 7.3: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Satisfaction
with Work-Life Balance (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question
f % f % f % f % f %
Question 42:
Managers allow generally
enough time for the
completion of
projects/jobs so that 47 4.4 187 17.3 266 24.7 516 47.9 62 5.8
employees can do good
quality work with limited
stress.
(Mean= 3.33, SD=0.97)
Question 43 #:
I often feel like there is too
167 15.5 485 45.0 179 16.6 217 20.1 30 2.8
much work to do.
(Mean= 2.50, SD=1.06)
Question 44:
My organisation provides
work conditions (e.g.,
flexible schedules, child
60 5.6 161 14.9 270 25.0 501 46.5 86 8.0
care facilities) which take
into account the emergent
needs of employees.
(Mean= 3.36, SD=1.01)
Question 45 #:
My work schedule is often
in conflict with my 52 4.8 246 22.8 261 24.2 441 40.9 78 7.2
personal life. (Mean=
3.23, SD=1.03)
Question 46 #:
My job affects my role as
a spouse and/or a
parent.(e.g. not enough 100 9.3 266 24.7 222 20.6 429 39.8 61 5.7
time to spend with family,
bring office works home).
(Mean= 3.08, SD=1.11)
Question 47 #:
My work has negative
56 5.2 163 15.1 180 16.7 475 44.1 204 18.9
effects on my personal life.
(Mean= 3.56, SD=1.11)
worded question.
291
According to the results in the table above, strong results were shown in each
their agreements or disagreements. Based on overall responses towards all questions,
more than half of the respondents agreed and agreed very much that their managers
generally allow enough time for the completion of projects or jobs so that they can do
good quality work with limited stress (f= 578, 53.7%). However most of the
respondents often felt that there is too much work for them to do (f= 652, 60.5%).
This was similar to the responses given to questions related to satisfaction with
operating conditions in Chapter 6, where academics were mostly having too much to
do at work. It could then affect academics time to spend on their personal activities.
This is evidenced by responses given by several interview respondents in the
qualitative study. For instance, KP7 and FG1-3s arguments on impacts of work
towards life or vice versa (Section 7.3.3). Each of them was from the management
level (KP7) and operational level (FG1-3) had shared the same concern on the
inability of academics to juggle between work and life. They both believed that too
much attention given to one of the dimensions will create an imbalance focus on the
other one.
Next, respondents thought that their organisation provides work conditions
which take into account the emergent needs of employees (f=587, 54.5%). Most of
the respondents also agreed that their work schedule is not in conflict with their
personal lives (f= 519, 48.1%) and their job did not affect their role as a spouse and/or
a parent (f= 490, 45.5%). The findings were opposing the preceding findings, where
academics thought that there was too much work for them to do.
These findings were of interest and reflected that even though there were so
much work to do at the workplace, some of the academics believed that it will not
have any conflict with their personal lives and will not affect their pertinent role in
their family. Interestingly, in accordance to the last question after been reverse-coded
in the work-life balance satisfaction scale, most of the respondents agreed that their
work has positive effects on their personal lives (f= 679, 63%), even though they have
too many things to do at work.
undertaken to investigate the overall level of work-life balance satisfaction. The result
shows that respondents had a moderate level of overall satisfaction with work-life
balance (Mean=3.18, SD=0.65). These findings supported one of the outcomes of the
292
qualitative study where some academics were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with
the work-life balance aspect and provide evidence that this antecedent had a
substantial impact on academics job satisfaction (see Table 7.1). This particular
finding is also in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007), where they
found that their respondents were moderately satisfied towards work-life balance
policy.
Hence, based on the above findings on the general level of satisfaction upon
work-life balance among academics, it is interesting to investigate further any
differences in work-life balance satisfaction between specific demographic
backgrounds of academics according to different categories of gender, age, tenure and
holding management position or not.

Gender
Table 7.4 below shows the t-test results for differences in satisfaction with
work-life balance among academics by gender. The t-test results indicated that there
was a significant difference in scores for male and female academics (t (1041)= 2.21,
p=0.027). Male academics (M=3.22, SD=0.60) were slightly more satisfied with
work-life balance compared to female academics (M=3.13, SD=0.68). The result was
contradicted with the findings in qualitative study where work-life balance
satisfaction was not really different between male and female academics.
Huang et al.s (2007) study on work-life balance only investigated the level of
work-life balance and its association with several consequence variables such as
organisational commitment and intention to leave without segregating the
respondents demographic into different gender. The current study extended past
research in the realm of gender differences in work-life balance satisfaction. The
findings also support Deery and Jagos (2009) framework to examine work-life
balance in terms of putting gender as among the important elements in completing
their proposed work-life balance model.
293
Table 7.4: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics
by Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
for equality of of
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Work-Life
Balance 3.22 0.60 3.13 0.68 6.88 0.01 1041 2.21 0.027**

Age
Table 7.5 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with work-life
balance among academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with work-life
balance among the five different age groups [F(4, 905)=4.178, p<0.05].
Table 7.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
Between Groups 6.67 4 1.67 4.178 0.002**
Total 368.05 909
work-life balance among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest
mean value of satisfaction shown by the group of age of 56 and over (M=3.51,
294
SD=0.37), while the lowest mean scored by the age group of 36 to 45 years old
(M=3.13, SD=0.62).
Table 7.6: Post-Hoc Analysis for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

(years) under over
25 & under 47 3.39 0.61 -
26-35 442 3.17 0.62 NS -
36-45 255 3.13 0.62 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.29 0.73 NS NS NS -
56 & over 24 3.51 0.37 NS NS * NS -

were 56 years old and over (M=3.51, SD=0.37) had a significantly higher level of
The case of associating different group of age with work-life balance is the
same as the findings of gender differences in the preceding sub-section. Huang et al.s
(2007) study on work-life balance only investigated the level of work-life balance and
its association with several consequence variables such as organisational commitment
and intention to leave without segregating the respondents demographic into different
age group. The current study extended past research in the realm of age differences in
work-life balance satisfaction. The findings also support Deery and Jagos (2009)
framework to examine work-life balance in terms of putting age as among the
important elements in completing their proposed work-life balance model.
295
Tenure
Table 7.7 below shows the ANOVA results for satisfaction with work-life
balance among academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there
was no statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level in satisfaction with work-
life balance among the four different tenure groups [F(3, 905)=2.236, p=0.11].
Table 7.7: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance
Between Groups 2.50 3 0.83 2.236 0.11
Total 369.99 901
The findings reiterated the findings in qualitative study where there were no
differences between the senior and junior academics in terms of work-life balance
satisfaction.

Management Position
Table 7.8 shows the t-test results for satisfaction with work-life balance among
academics by either holding a management position or not holding a management
position. The t-test results indicated that there was no significant difference in scores
for academics that hold a management position (M=3.21, SD=0.62) and academics
that do not hold a management position [M=3.17, SD=0.66; t (927)= -1.05, p=0.30].
296
Table 7.8: t-Test Result for Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance among Academics
Sig. (2-
Group t-test for
tailed)
Variable position position
(n=376) (n=553)
Work-Life
Balance 3.17 0.66 3.21 0.62 1.46 0.23 927 -1.05 0.30
The results in the quantitative study were different to the findings in the
qualitative study. As revealed through the interviews with the key-person and the
focus groups, those who were satisfied with the aspect of work-life balance were
among the top management people while none of the academics without a
management position responded positively. Although quantitative findings showed no
significant differences between the two major groups of academics, from the
qualitative study, we still can hold to the premise that people who hold a management
position thought that they had a balance of time and responsibilities between work
and life, but most people at the operational level in the universities thought
differently.
7.5 Conclusion
This chapter has first discussed the qualitative study with the key-person and the
focus groups in regards to work-life balance satisfaction. Secondly, the findings of the
qualitative study were then extended and compared with the findings in the
quantitative study pertaining to satisfaction of academics towards work-life balance.
Several key issues had been discussed thoroughly by the interview respondents apart
from their general satisfactions towards work-life balance. In each key issue, some led
to satisfaction and some to dissatisfaction.
297
Table 7.9: Summary for the Findings of Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance

(n=17) (n=1078)
Overall Arising Overall Hold Management
Gender Age Tenure
Satisfaction Issues Satisfaction Position or Not
6 respondents 1. All of the satisfied
were satisfied respondents were Moderate
and those in the (Mean= 3.18,
5 respondents management level SD= 0.65)
were neither
dissatisfied nor 2. Most of the
satisfied respondents in the Males were more Older academics No significant No significant
Work-Life operational level were satisfied than were more difference between difference between
Balance neither dissatisfied nor females satisfied seniors and juniors academics with and
satisfied, while two of without management
them were dissatisfied position

- the issue of working
overtime and on
weekend
- family support
298
there were differences between responses of work-life balance satisfaction based on
different categories of demographics. Summary for the findings of satisfaction with
work-life balance were depicted in Table 7.9.
Several key findings were revealed in this chapter through both the qualitative
study and the quantitative study. Firstly, based on the interviews, all of the
management people accepted that work-life balance is a contributor towards their job
satisfaction. On the other hand, none of the respondents in the operational level
responded that they were satisfied with work-life balance and they were mostly
tended to show that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is related to the
changing nature of the people who were appointed for management position, where
they learned better on how to balance the time for their work and for their family.
Despite of having a lot of responsibilities at the workplace, they try very hard to win
the hearts of their beloved ones at home. Key-Person 2 and Key-Person 8 shared on
this previously, where their mutual concern is not on the quantity of time they could
spend for both workplace and personal life, but the quality of time they could spend
for both important life spectrums. Broers (2005) asserts this as challenging and has a
great impact on a persons satisfaction in his job.
Secondly, three key factors that lead to academics satisfaction with work-life
balance were initiated and discussed by respondents in the qualitative study. The key
factors were working overtime and on weekend, the importance of family support,
and impacts of work towards life or vice versa. These were solely revealed in the
qualitative study and furthered through questions adapted and modified from past
research in the quantitative study as important considerations in satisfaction with
work-life balance.
Thirdly, evidenced by the responses in the qualitative study, most of the
academics in the operational level were dissatisfied with the issue of working
overtime and on weekend. Conversely, this was not a dissatisfying factor for
management people as argued by a key-person (KP8). Family support was regarded
as a vital source of work-life balance satisfaction and job satisfaction among both
respondents from the management group and the ordinary academics group. The issue
of impacts of work towards life or vice versa was regarded as a factor that contributes
towards dissatisfaction among several academics in the operational level, while
299
academics in the management level tended to give opinions on consequences and
benefits of having a good mechanism on balancing the influence of both dimensions-
work and life- toward each other.
Fourth, in certain demographic aspects, people kept comparing the disparity of
what they and others had obtained. This concern was not far different with what been
discussed in the preceding findings chapters (Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6),
where different academics with different demographic backgrounds tended to unveil
their dissatisfactions towards their counterparts in certain discussed antecedents and
issues.
Fifth, it is also worth noting that the result of the current study supports the
past works of Burke, Burgess and Oberrlaid (2004), Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne
(2007), and Virick et al. (2007) which indicate that work-life balance is correlated
positively with job satisfaction. Subsequently, based on the finding in the quantitative
study, academics were moderately satisfied with work life-balance. This particular
finding was in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007), where they found
that their respondents were moderately satisfied with work-life balance policy.
However, this particular finding was inconsistent with the outcomes of Premeaux et
al. (2007) and Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne (2007), where they found that their
respondents have a low level of satisfaction with work-life balance. This might be so
evidenced by the arguments of some academics in the qualitative study where they
feel uncomfortable with the way how they divide their focus towards their family and
the workplace (refer to Chapter 7, section 7.2.1 and section 7.2.2). The Ministry of
Higher Education from time to time implements the on-going improved key-
performance indicators (KPI) on academics especially those in the public higher
education institutions including the needs of involvement in more R&D activities,
articles published in ISI, SCOPUS or ERA journals, community engagement,
professional membership in any academic-related institute, and patented products and
services (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b). The requirement of such
KPI might be regarded by academics as a potential threat on their ability to balance
between work and life.
Sixth, according to the quantitative study findings, there were no significant
differences of satisfaction with work-life balance based on different tenure in the
current university and between academics with or without a management position.
However male academics have a significantly higher level of satisfaction than female
300
academics and older academics were significantly more satisfied than the younger
ones. The finding related to different genders supports the findings of previous works
of Deery and Jago (2009) and Huang et al. (2007). In the current study, female
academics may feel the heavier burden on creating the balance between work and life.
Evidenced by the arguments by several female academics in the key-person and focus
group interviews in the qualitative study, females may be more concerned with the
family and personal life needs. When the university required them to fulfil more
stringent policies of working such as the implementation of new KPI, these female
academics will feel uncomfortable thinking of more times that should be sent for their
family, will be easily robbed by doing things needed at the workplace.
In regards with the work-life balance satisfaction based on age, the current
studys outcome can be predicted since older workers have a better experience and
skill to juggle between work and life. Older academics can easily adapt to the
difficulties or problems at the workplace. Evidenced by the older responses given in
the interviews, the respondents thought that any problems that occurred needed to be
treated as a challenge, and that itself could lead to job satisfaction.
Seventh, this chapter had showed that work-life balance is an important
antecedent of job satisfaction demonstrated by the development of several sub areas
explored and elaborated on from the interview responses which then brought into the
quantitative study questionnaire. It means that, together with the other antecedents of
job satisfaction discussed in Chapter 4 (government and universities policies and
support), Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 (organisational antecedents), work-life balance is
another important antecedent which should be included in any study of job
satisfaction in the future. This was in accordance with a recommendation made by
Samad (2006), who found in her study that although work-life balance has a smaller
effect on job satisfaction as compared to family satisfaction, that the importance of the
effect on job satisfaction cannot be neglected.
Next Chapter 8 explores these antecedents and their effects on academics
overall job satisfaction and intention to leave proposing a comprehensive model of
interrelationships between all antecedents. Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the
research and concludes the research by listing out contributions of the research
towards theory, practice and methodology. The chapter also proposes
recommendations for future research.
301
Chapter 8
DESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS IN THE ONLINE SURVEY
8.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines descriptive and empirical findings in the online survey. This
chapter details several findings of the online survey completed by academics from
three participating public universities between November 2008 and March 2009.
The aims of this chapter were first, to understand respondents overall job
satisfaction and then to investigate its differences based on respondents demographic
backgrounds. Secondly, to identify the level of intention to leave among respondents
and further investigate its differences according to respondents demographic
backgrounds. Thirdly, the chapter aims to investigate the relationships between the
antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave. This
chapter also aims to investigate the mediation and moderation roles played by several
variables included in the study.
The chapter is structured in seven sections. First, findings pertaining to overall
job satisfaction are presented. It is followed by an elaboration on the findings of
intention to leave. Next, correlations and regression findings are detailed. The
outcomes of mediation and moderation analyses are also presented. The organisation
of the chapter is as depicted in Figure 8.1.
302
Section Description
8.1 The section discusses specifically the findings on

Overall Job Satisfaction overall job satisfaction.
Findings
8.3 The section discusses specifically the findings on

Intention to Leave Findings intention to leave.
8.4
Correlations & Regression The section elaborates findings related to correlations
Findings and regression analyses.
8.5
Mediation Analysis The section provides details on mediation analysis.
8.6
Moderation Analyses The section provides details on moderation analyses.
8.7 The section summarizes key findings from the online

Conclusion survey and concludes the chapter.
8.2 Level of Overall Job Satisfaction of Academics in Malaysian Higher

Education Institutions
In order to determine the level of overall job satisfaction among respondents,

frequencies and percentages of responses of all respondents from the three
participating public universities were calculated and mean and standard deviation
results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 8.1 presents scores for each of the six
questions on overall job satisfaction responded to by survey respondents. All
responses for negatively worded questions (Question 49, Question 51, Question 52,
and Question 53) were reverse-coded.
303
Table 8.1 below depicts the findings of frequencies, percentages, and mean
value of overall job satisfaction.
Table 8.1: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean Score for Questions on Overall
Satisfaction (N=1078)
Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 48:
All in all, I am satisfied
9 0.8 51 4.7 168 15.6 683 63.4 167 15.5
with my job.
(Mean= 3.88, SD=0.75)
Question 49# :
In general, I dont like
78 7.2 116 10.8 74 6.9 528 49.0 282 26.2
my job.
(Mean= 3.76, SD=1.16)
Question 50:
In general, I like
17 1.6 26 2.4 182 16.9 627 58.2 226 21.0
working here.
(Mean= 3.95, SD=0.78)
Question 51#:
I often think of quitting the
91 8.4 151 14.0 209 19.4 359 33.3 268 24.9
organisation.
(Mean= 3.52, SD=1.24)
Question 52 #:
I think of searching for
another position with 86 8.0 218 20.2 188 17.4 344 31.9 242 22.4
another organisation.
(Mean= 3.41, SD=1.26)
Question 53 #:
I often thinking of leaving
the organisation within 94 8.7 132 12.2 181 16.8 353 32.7 318 29.5
the next year.
(Mean= 3.62, SD=1.26)
5=agree very much. #= negatively worded question.
According to the results in the table above, strong results were shown in each
their agreements or disagreements. Based on overall responses towards all questions,
more than half of the respondents agreed and agreed very much that they are satisfied
with their job (Question 48, f= 850, 78.9%). In general, respondents do like their job
as an academic (Question 49, f= 810, 75.2%), and they like working in their
universities (Question 50, f= 853, 79.2%).
304
Furthermore, more than half of the respondents think of staying in the present
organisation (Question 51, f= 627, 58.2%), did not have any intention of searching for
another position with another organisation (Question 52, f= 586, 54.3%), and do not
think of leaving the organisation within the next year (Question 53, f= 671, 62.2%).
However, there were also a huge number of the respondents who responded
differently. About 242 respondents (22.4%) agreed and agreed very much that they
often think of quitting the organisation, 304 (28.2%) think of searching for another
position with another organisation, and 226 (20.9%) often thinking of leaving the
organisation within the next year. These findings are important in indicating that even
though the majority of the academics show the tendency of having a good level of job
satisfaction, there were also some of them who thought the other way around with an
intention of leaving to find happiness and satisfaction in working with other
organisations.
In accordance with the findings presented in Table 8.1, a further analysis was
undertaken to investigate the overall level of job satisfaction based on the sum of all
questions that measure job satisfaction. The result shows that respondents had a high
level of overall job satisfaction (M=3.69, SD=0.85). This finding is similar to the
findings of Toker (2011), Castiglia (2006), Callister (2006), Goff (2004), Newby
(1999), and Oshagbemi (1997). This particular finding is in contrast with the findings
of Akpofure et al. (2006) who found that higher education academics were highly
dissatisfied with their job, and the findings of Ksk (2003) in Turkey and Bilimoria
et al. (2006) in the USA where university academics have a moderate level of job
satisfaction. The finding is also not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff
(2009) where they found that academics in a Malaysian university were moderately
satisfied with their job.
8.2.1 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender
Table 8.2 shows the t-test results for overall job satisfaction among academics
by gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean
scores for male academics (M=3.77, SD=0.86) and female academics [M=3.58,
SD=0.83; t (1041)=3.647, p<0.05].
305
Table 8.2: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
for equality of
Male Female of variance means
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Overall Job
Satisfaction 3.77 0.86 3.58 0.83 0.64 0.42 1041 3.647 0.00**
Thus, we can conclude that the study found that male academics had a
significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared to their female counterparts.
This finding contrasts to Newbys (1999) finding on academics in the USA,
Oshagbemis (2000) on academics in the UK, and Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009)
finding on employees in small and medium enterprises in Australia, where females
reported higher job satisfaction than males.
Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff
(2009). In their study among academic staff in a Malaysian university, they found that
there were no significant differences between male and female academics with regard
to overall job satisfaction, and they conclude that overall job satisfaction does not
increase as a function of gender (Noordin & Jusoff, 2009:124).
8.2.2 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age
Table 8.3 below shows the ANOVA results for overall job satisfaction among
significant difference in overall job satisfaction among the five different age groups
[F(4, 905)=2.571, p<0.05].
306
Table 8.3: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Overall Job Satisfaction among
Academics by Age
Between Groups 7.42 4 1.85 2.571 0.037**
Total 660.14 909
Table 8.4 below shows the results of post-hoc analysis for overall job
satisfaction among academics by age groups. It is observed that the highest mean
value of job satisfaction was shown by the group of age of 56 and over (M=3.90,
SD=1.10), while the lowest mean was scored by the age group of 26 to 35 years old
(M=3.61, SD=0.78).
Table 8.4: Post-Hoc Analysis for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Age
(years) under over
25 & under 47 3.62 0.82 -
26-35 442 3.61 0.78 NS -
36-45 255 3.72 0.89 NS NS -
46-55 142 3.85 0.95 NS * NS -
56 & over 24 3.90 1.10 NS NS NS NS -
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD test indicated that academics between
46 to 55 years old (M=3.85, SD=0.95) had a significantly higher level of overall job
Hence, older academics have a higher level of overall job satisfaction than their
younger counterparts.
This studys finding compares very favourably with the findings of Newby
(1999) among respondents in the USA, Noordin and Jusoff (2009) among university
academics in Malaysia, and Toker (2011), where older academics were significantly
more satisfied than the younger ones. Conversely, the current studys finding is
307
inconsistent with Akpofures (2006) finding, where Akpofure found that academics in
Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older.
This studys finding also differs to the finding of Tu et al. (2005), where they
found that there was no statistically significant difference in term of age for full-time
Taiwanese and Chinese academics at higher education in overall job satisfaction.
8.2.3 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Tenure
Table 8.5 below shows the ANOVA results for overall job satisfaction among
academics by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically
significant difference in overall job satisfaction among the five different tenure groups
[F(4, 898)=2.236, p=0.083]. This is contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi
(2000) among university academics in the UK and Toker (2011) among a university
academics in Turkey, where they found significant differences of satisfaction among
different tenure groups in their studies respectively.
Table 8.5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Overall Job Satisfaction among
Academics by Tenure
Between Groups 4.79 4 1.60 2.236 0.083
Total 645.73 901
8.2.4 Differences in Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by Management

Position
Table 8.6 shows the t-test results for overall job satisfaction among academics
by holding a management position or not holding a management position. The t-test
results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean scores for academics
without management position (M=3.80, SD=0.83) and academics with management
position [M=3.62, SD=0.85; t (927)= 3.18, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that
308
academics without a management position had a significantly higher overall job
satisfaction compared to their counterparts.
Table 8.6: t-Test Result for Overall Job Satisfaction among Academics by
Management Position
Sig. (2-
Group t-test for
tailed)
position position
Overall Job
3.80 0.83 3.62 0.85 0.368 0.54 927 3.18 0.00**
Satisfaction
This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and Verdin (1983), who found
that employees without supervisory responsibility have a higher job satisfaction than
those with supervisory responsibility. Conversely, Ranz et al. (2001) in their study
among psychiatrists in New York found that psychiatrists in management positions
experience significantly higher job satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This
studys finding are also dissimilar with the one of Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009),
where non-managerial employees of small and medium enterprises in Australia
reported lower levels of job satisfaction than managers.
8.3 Level of Intention to Leave of Academics in Malaysian Higher Education

Institutions
This section attempts to explain the findings related to the level of intention to leave
among the online survey respondents. Frequencies and percentages of responses of all
respondents from the three participating public universities were calculated and means
and standard deviation results of satisfaction were analysed. Table 8.7 presents scores
for each of the three questions on intention to leave as responded by survey
309
respondents. Negatively worded questions (Question 73 and Question 74) were
reverse-coded.
Table 8.7: Frequencies, Percentages and Mean of Intention to Leave (N=1078)

Responses 1 2 3 4 5
(n=1078)
Question 54:
I think of staying in the
91 8.4 151 14.0 209 19.4 359 33.3 268 24.9
current workplace.
(Mean= 2.48, SD=1.23)
Question 55 #:
I think of searching for
any job with any other 86 8.0 218 20.2 188 17.4 344 31.9 242 22.4
organisation
(Mean= 2.59, SD=1.26)
Question 56 #:
I often thinking of leaving
the organisation within 94 8.7 132 12.2 181 16.8 353 32.7 318 29.5
the next year.
(Mean= 2.38, SD=1.26)
5=agree very much. #= negatively worded question.
Based on the findings shown in Table 8.7, more than half of the respondents
thought of staying in the current workplace (Question 72, f= 567, 58.2%).
Furthermore, according to the reverse-coded responses for Question 73 and Question
74, over half of the respondents do not think of finding another job with any other
organisation (f= 586, 54.3%) nor think of leaving the organisation within the next
year (f=671, 62.2%).
undertaken to investigate the level of intention to leave based on the sum of all
questions that measure intention to leave. The result shows that respondents had a low
level of intention to leave the organisation (M=2.48, SD=1.17). This finding is in
accordance to those of Roberts and Chonko (1994), Barrett and Yates (2002),
Nasurdin, Ramayah and Hemdi (2005), and Ng and Sorensen (2008), where the level
of intention to leave was low among their respondents. On the contrary, this particular
finding opposes the work of Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) who found a moderate
level of intention to leave among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia,
310
and high level of intention to leave in Huang, Lawler and Leis (2007) study among
auditors in public accounting firms in Taiwan.
8.3.1 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender
Table 8.8 shows the t-test results for intention to leave among academics by
gender. The t-test results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean
scores for male academics (M=2.39, SD=1.24) and female academics [M=2.60,
SD=1.11; t (1041)= -2.95, p<0.05]. Thus, we can conclude that female academics
have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male counterparts.
Table 8.8: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Gender
t-test for Sig. (2-
Group
for equality of
Male Female of variance means
(n=533) (n=510)
Variable
Intention to
2.39 1.24 2.60 1.11 6.10 0.01 1041 -2.95 0.00**
Leave
This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts & Chonko (1994), where female
academics were found to have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to
their male counterparts. However, this finding is different to Villanueva and
Djurkovics (2009) study among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia
where they found that there was no effect based on different gender on the intention to
leave.
8.3.2 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Age
Table 8.9 below shows the ANOVA results for intention to leave among
academics by age groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically
311
significant difference in intention to leave among the five different age groups [F(4,
905)=1.88, p=0.11]. Hence, it can be concluded that there is no difference in
intention to leave among academics in different age groups. This finding is opposite
to the finding of Huang et al. (2007) among auditors in Taiwanese public accounting
firms, where they found significant difference in intention to leave among different
age categories.
Table 8.9: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among Academics
by Age
Between Groups 10.38 4 2.60 1.879 0.11
Total 1260.60 909
8.3.3 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Tenure
Table 8.10 below shows the ANOVA results for intention to leave among academics
by tenure groups. The ANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically significant
difference in intention to leave among the four different tenure groups [F(3,
898)=1.11, p=0.35]. Hence we can say that intention to leave is not influenced by
different level of tenure in the university among academics.
Table 8.10: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Intention to Leave among Academics
by Tenure
Between Groups 4.50 3 1.50 1.11 0.35
Total 1221.27 901
312
8.3.4 Differences in Intention to Leave among Academics by Management
Position
Table 8.11 shows the t-test results for intention to leave among academics by
holding a management position or not holding a management position. The t-test
results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean scores for academics
with a management position (M=2.60, SD=1.19) and academics without a
management position [M=2.33, SD=1.13; t (927)=-3.058, p<0.05]. Even though both
groups of academics scored a low level of intention to leave, this finding led to the
conclusion that academics without a management position had a significantly higher
intention to leave than academics with a management position.
This finding supports the findings in past research where workers in
operational level have higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers
(Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009: 129).
Table 8.11: t-Test Result for Intention to Leave among Academics by Management
Position
Sig. (2-
Group t-test for
tailed)
position position
Intention to
2.60 1.13 2.33 1.19 2.14 0.14 927 -3.058 0.00**
Leave
8.4 Correlations Findings
As described in Chapter 3 previously, correlation analysis is essential in determining

the direction and the strength of the relationship between two variables (Hair et al.,
2010; Konting, 1993; Mohd Noor, 2004; Pallant, 2011). Table 8.12 describes the
correlation findings for the relationships measured.
313
Table 8.12: Bivariate Correlations between All Variables of the Study
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Government & Universities Policies & Support 1
2. Pay .353** 1
3. Promotion .333** .471** 1
4. Supervision .344** .233** .417** 1
5. Fringe Benefits .342** .553** .427** .275** 1
6. Contingent Rewards .437** .481** .543** .548** .456** 1
7. Operating Conditions .135** .302** .131** .025 .294** .233** 1
8. Co-Workers .270** .316** .274** .382** .245** .451** .163** 1
9. Nature of Work .268** .239** .314** .304** .264** .331** .124** .398** 1
10. Communication .361** .402** .417** .539** .326** .608** .112** .502** .295** 1
11. Work-Life Balance .408** .384** .300** .348** .440** .461** .412** .342** .322** .395** 1
12. Overall Job Satisfaction .489** .322** .319** .533** .265** .593** .062* .475** .423** .617** .432** 1
13. Intention to Leave -.433** -.290** -.258** -.469** -.232** -.560** -.070* -.423** -.303** -.574** -.376** -.960** 1
Note: The number of missing cases based on pairwise deletion ranged from 0 to 203. *p 0.05. **p 0.01
314
8.4.1 The relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall
job satisfaction
According to the correlation result in Table 8.12, there were positive and linear
relationships and coefficient correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction
with overall job satisfaction. These imply that when an antecedent of job satisfaction
is increased, overall job satisfaction is also increased. This particular findings were in
accordance with the findings in several past research studies (see Akpofure et al.,
2006; Barret & Yates, 2002; Donnelly, 2006, Koustelios, 2001; Mohd Noor, 2004;
Spector, 1997).
From the result shown in Table 8.12, it can be explained that government and
universities policies and support (r= .49, p<0.01), supervision (r= .53, p<0.01),
contingent rewards (r= .59, p<0.01), co-workers (r= .48, p<0.01), nature of work (r=
.42, p<0.01), communication (r= .62, p<0.01), and work-life balance (r=.43, p<0.01)
had positive and moderate relationships with overall job satisfaction. Pay (r= .32,
p<0.01), promotion (r= .32, p<0.01), and fringe benefits (r= .26, p<0.01) had positive
and low correlations with overall job satisfaction. Of all, albeit of its moderate level of
relationship with overall job satisfaction, contingent rewards showed the strongest
level of correlation in regards to its relationship with job satisfaction.
Subsequently, operating conditions showed the weakest strength of positive
and linear correlation in the relationship with overall job satisfaction (r= .06, p<0.05).
This weak relationship between operating conditions with overall job satisfaction is
considered as almost negligible relationship according to Guilfords rule of thumb as
explained in Chapter 3 (page 90).

intention to leave
Based on the result in Table 8.12, there were negative and linear relationships
and coefficient correlations between all job satisfaction antecedents with intention to
leave. These imply that when an antecedent of job satisfaction increases, intention to
leave decreases.
From the result shown in Table 8.12, it can be explained that government and
universities policies and support (r= -.43, p<0.01), supervision (r= -.47, p<0.01),
341
contingent rewards (r= -.56, p<0.01), co-workers (r= -.42, p<0.01), and
communication (r= -.57, p<0.01), had negative and moderate relationships with
intention to leave the organisation. Pay (r= -.29, p<0.01), promotion (r= -.26, p<0.01),
fringe benefits (r= -.23, p<0.01), nature of work (r= -.30, p<0.01), and work-life
balance (r= -.38, p<0.01), had negative and low correlations with intention to leave.
Based on these findings, communication showed the highest strength in regards to the
correlation with intention to leave. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength
of negative and linear correlation in the relationship with intention to leave (r= -.07,
p<0.05). Again, similar to the correlation findings with overall job satisfaction, this
weak relationship between operating conditions with intention to leave the
organisation is considered as almost a negligible relationship according to Guilfords
rule of thumb.
8.4.3 The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave
According to the correlation result in Table 8.12, there was a negative and
very high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave
(r= -.96, p<0.05). This is considered as a very dependable relationship based on
Guilfords rule of thumb as explained earlier in Chapter 3. This finding particularly
supports the findings in Youngcourts (2005) study among employed students in a
university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.s (1995) longitudinal study among registered
nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA, and Falkenburg and Schynss (2007)
comparative study among electronic plants employees in Netherland and Slovakia,
where they found job satisfaction negatively correlated with intention to leave the
organisation.
8.5 Mediation Analysis
Multiple regression method is also used to measure the effect of a mediator on

the relationship between independent and dependent variables of the study. In this
study, job satisfaction is implemented as a mediator variable between the antecedents
of job satisfaction and intention to leave. Research Question 8: Does overall job
satisfaction mediate the relationships between each of the antecedents of job
342
satisfaction with intention to leave? is answered through eleven hypotheses, H8(a) to
H8(k). These hypotheses were tested using mediation analysis as follows:
8.5.1. Hypothesis 8(a)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(a) that government and universities policy
satisfaction (GUPS) and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall
job satisfaction (OJS).
The findings of the mediation analysis conducted using the causal steps
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(a) are as follows. GUPS was
significantly predicted ITL = -0.57, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed
to investigate the involvement of OJS as a possible mediator of the relationship
between GUPS and ITL. GUPS was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( =
0.94, p < 0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for GUPS and OJS when
used simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.05, p < 0.05 and = -
0.68, p < 0.05).
Based on the analysis, the first three conditions were met. Subsequently, the
unstandardised regression coefficients for GUP and OJS when used simultaneously to
predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kennys (1986) steps in
establishing mediation, OJS mediates partially the relationship between GUP and ITL.
In order to assess for the significance of a mediation effect of OJS in the
relationships between GUP and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of ZZ was
used. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the
product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the mediation
relationship of GUP-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of P=
ZZindicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between GUP and
ITL (P = -1870.25, p < 0.05).
Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test, therefore, overall job
satisfaction significantly and partially mediates the relationship between government
and university policy satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(a) is therefore
supported.
343
8.5.2. Hypothesis 8(b)
It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(b) that pay satisfaction (PAY) and intention to
leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(b) are as follows. PAY was
significantly predicted ITL ( = -0.25, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed
to investigate the involvement of OJS as possible mediator of the relationship between
PAY and ITL. PAY was found to significantly predict OJS ( = 0.40, p < 0.05). The
unstandardised regression coefficient for PAY and OJS when used simultaneously to
predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.02, p < 0.05 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).
unstandardised regression coefficients for PAY and OJS when used simultaneously to
establishing mediation, OJS mediates partially the relationship between PAY and ITL.
relationships between PAY and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ
was used. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution
of the product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the
mediation relationship of PAY-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test
of ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between PAY and
ITL (P = -1200.12, p < 0.05).
Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test findings, therefore,
overall job satisfaction significantly and partially mediates the relationship between
pay satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(b) is therefore supported.
8.5.3. Hypothesis 8(c)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(c) that promotion satisfaction (PROMO) and
intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction (OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(c) are as follows. PROMO was
PROMO and ITL. PROMO was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.57, p <
344
0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for PROMO and OJS when used
simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.07, p < 0.05 and = -0.68, p
< 0.05).
unstandardised regression coefficients for PROMO and OJS when used
simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kennys
(1986) steps in establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the
relationship between PROMO and ITL.
relationships between PROMO and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P =
ZZ. The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of
the product of two normal random variables to test for significance of the mediation
relationship of PROMO-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of
ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between PROMO and
ITL (P = -1216.46, p < 0.05).
promotion satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(c) is therefore supported.
8.5.4. Hypothesis 8(d)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(d) that supervision satisfaction (SV) and
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis (d) are as follows. SV was
SV and ITL. SV was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.86, p < 0.05). The
unstandardised regression coefficient for SV and OJS when used simultaneously to
unstandardised regression coefficients for SV and OJS when used simultaneously to
345
establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the relationship between
SV and ITL.
relationships between SV and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
The current study used critical values based on the theoretical distribution of the
relationship of SV-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between SV and ITL (P = -
2071.72, p < 0.05).
supervision satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(d) is therefore supported.
8.5.5. Hypothesis 8(e)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(e) that fringe benefits satisfaction (FB) and
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(e) are as follows. FB was
FB and ITL. FB was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.45, p < 0.05). The
unstandardised regression coefficient for FB and OJS when used simultaneously to
unstandardised regression coefficients for FB and OJS when used simultaneously to
establishing mediation, as a result, OJS mediates partially the relationship between FB
and ITL.
relationships between FB and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
346
relationship of FB -OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between FB and ITL (P =
-991.16, p < 0.05).
fringe benefits satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(e) is therefore
supported.
8.5.6. Hypothesis 8(f)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(f) that contingent rewards satisfaction (CR)
and intention to leave (ITL) will be partially mediated by overall job satisfaction
(OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(f) are as follows. CR was
CR and ITL. CR was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.96, p < 0.05). The
unstandardised regression coefficient for CR and OJS when used simultaneously to
predict ITL are not both significant ( = 0.02, p = 0.17 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).
Based on the analysis, all four conditions were met. The unstandardised
regression coefficients for CR and OJS when used simultaneously to predict ITL are
not both significant. According to Baron and Kennys (1986) steps in establishing
mediation, as a result, OJS mediates fully the relationship between CR and ITL.
relationships between CR and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
relationship of CR-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between CR and ITL (P =
-2212.88, p < 0.05). Based on the causal steps analysis and significance test findings,
therefore, overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationship
between contingent rewards satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(f) is
therefore rejected.
347
8.5.7. Hypothesis 8(g)
It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(g) that operating conditions satisfaction (OP)
(OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(g) are as follows. OP was
significantly predicted ITL ( = 0.08, p < 0.05). Regression analysis was employed to
investigate the involvement of OJS as possible mediator of the relationship between
OP and ITL. OP was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.10, p < 0.05). The
unstandardised regression coefficient for OP and OJS when used simultaneously to
predict ITL are not both significant ( = 0.01, p = 0.21 and = -0.67, p < 0.05).
Based on the analysis, all four conditions were met. The unstandardised
regression coefficients for OP and OJS when used simultaneously to predict ITL are
not both significant. According to Baron and Kennys (1986) steps in establishing
mediation, as a result, OJS mediates fully the relationship between OP and ITL.
relationships between OP and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
relationship of OP-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between OP and ITL (P =
228.51, p < 0.05).
overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationship between
operating conditions satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(g) is therefore
rejected.
8.5.8. Hypothesis 8(h)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(h) that co-workers satisfaction (CW) and
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(h) are as follows. CW was
348
CW and ITL. CW was found to be significantly predicted OJS (= 0.97, p < 0.05).
The unstandardised regression coefficient for CW and OJS when used simultaneously
to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.06, p <0.05 and = -0.68, p < 0.05).
Based on the analysis, all three conditions were met. Subsequently, the
unstandardised regression coefficients for CW and OJS when used simultaneously to
CW and ITL.
relationships between CW and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
relationship of CW-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between CW and ITL (P =
1808.52, p < 0.05).
co-workers satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(h) is therefore supported.
8.5.9. Hypothesis 8(i)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(i) that nature of work satisfaction (NOW) and
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(i) are as follows. NOW was
NOW and ITL. NOW was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.91, p <
0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for NOW and OJS when used
simultaneously to predict ITL are both significant ( = 0.19, p <0.05 and = -0.70, p
< 0.05).
349
unstandardised regression coefficients for NOW and OJS when used simultaneously
to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kennys (1986) steps in
NOW and ITL.
relationships between NOW and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P =
relationship of NOW-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between NOW and ITL (P =
1810.20, p < 0.05).
nature of work satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(i) is therefore
supported.
8.5.10. Hypothesis 8(j)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(j) that communication satisfaction (COMM)
(OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(j) are as follows. COMM was
COMM and ITL. COMM was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.95, p <
0.05). The unstandardised regression coefficient for COMM and OJS when used
< 0.05).
unstandardised regression coefficients for COMM and OJS when used simultaneously
to predict ITL are both significant. According to Baron and Kennys (1986) steps in
350
COMM and ITL.
relationships between COMM and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P =
relationship of COMM-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of
ZZ indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between COMM and
ITL (P = 2331.33, p < 0.05).
communication satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(j) is therefore
supported.
8.5.11. Hypothesis 8(k)

It was proposed in Hypothesis 8(k) that work-life balance satisfaction (WLB)
(OJS).
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for Hypothesis 8(k) are as follows. WLB was
WLB and ITL. WLB was found to be significantly predicted OJS ( = 0.57, p < 0.05).
The unstandardised regression coefficient for WLB and OJS when used
< 0.05).
unstandardised regression coefficients for WLB and OJS when used simultaneously to
WLB and ITL.
relationships between WLB and ITL, MacKinnon et al.s (2002) method of P = ZZ.
351
relationship of WLB-OJS-ITL. The result of MacKinnon et al.s (2002) test of ZZ
indicated that OJS significantly mediated the relationship between WLB and ITL (P =
1653.85, p < 0.05).
work-life balance satisfaction and intention to leave. Hypothesis 8(k) is therefore
supported.
8.5.12 Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings
All in all, there were nine relationships between the antecedents of job
satisfaction with intention to leave significantly but partially mediated by overall job
satisfaction. These antecedents of job satisfaction were government and universities
policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-workers, nature
of work, communication, and work-life balance. In contrast, there were only two
relationships between antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave
significantly and fully mediated by overall job satisfaction. These antecedents of job
satisfaction were contingent rewards and operating conditions. Figure 8.2 depicts the
summary of the mediation analysis findings. Differences between partial and full
mediation were explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2.2, pp 91-95).
Since there is still no study initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the
mediation role of job satisfaction, the current studys findings of mediation analysis
provides new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable
between the antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence variable of job
satisfaction which is intention to leave.
352
Figure 8.2: Summary of the Mediation Analysis Findings
1. Government &
Universities Policies
and Support Overall Job
2. Pay Satisfaction
3. Promotion Intention
4. Supervision to
5. Fringe Benefits Leave
6. Co-Workers Significantly & partially mediates
7. Nature of Work
8. Communication
9. Work-Life Balance
Overall Job
1. Contingent Rewards Satisfaction Intention
2. Operating Conditions to
Leave
Significantly & fully mediates
8.6 Moderation Analysis
This section deals with research question 9: Do demographic backgrounds fully

moderate the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave?.
To answer the question, there are three equations tested using hierarchical regression
analysis, to be considered and compared to identify the interaction or changes effect
of moderator variable on the relationships occur between independent variables and
dependent variable. As elaborated in Chapter 3, the equation forms a model of
hierarchical regression as follows:
353
Equation 1 (Original Model) = Y = a + b1 X
Equation 2 (Limited Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z
Equation 3 (Full Model) = Y = a + b1X + c1Z + d1XZ
where:
Y = The dependent variable (KS practices)
X = The independent variable (i.e. technology)
Z = The moderator variable (KS awareness)
XZ = The multiplier of the independent variable with the moderator
variable.
a = Constant Value for the Y variable
b, c, and d = The regression coefficients for independent variable
e = Standard error of the estimate
The coefficient of R2 value obtained from the statistical analysis is used to

determine whether the moderator effect is significant and estimates the moderated
relationship. If the changes in R2 (R2) is statistically significant, then a significant
moderator effect is present (Frazier et al.; Hair, et al.,2004; Kenny, 2009). In other
words, the demographic backgrounds impact on the relationship between independent
variables, for instance job satisfaction with intention to leave, when R2 value at the
full model is significant. Otherwise, the moderator variable will only act as an
estimator towards dependant variable.
Four assumptions or hypotheses are further developed separately from the
above question as follow:
Hypothesis 9(a): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention
to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of age
Hypothesis 9(b): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention
to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of gender
Hypothesis 9(c): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention
to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of tenure
Hypothesis 9(d): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention
to leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of holding
managerial position
354
8.6.1 The Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Intention to Leave
This section answers the question of whether or not age moderates the relationship
between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian
Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the assumption below:
Hypothesis 9(a): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of age
Table 8.13 shows the result of the three equations of original, limited and full
model through the hierarchical regression analysis. The results for original equation
model is (R2= 1.134, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R2= 0.064, p < 0.05) and full
equation model (R2= 0.024, p=0.39). The findings indicate that there is no significant
effect of OJSage variable towards the relationship between overall job satisfaction
and intention to leave. Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and
intention to leave is not moderated by age.
Table 8.13: Moderator Effect of Age on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction
and Intention to Leave
Model Intention to Leave

R2 R2 Sig
intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction + e 1.134** .967** .000
intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction +

c1age+ e .064** .024** .011

c1age+ d1OJSage* + e .024 .010 .386
**Note: significance level of p < 0.05
* OJSage = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and age variable
355
8.6.2 The Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job
This section answers the question of whether or not gender moderates the relationship
between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian
Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the assumption below:
Hypothesis 9(b): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is fully moderated by the personal demographic of gender
model is (R2= -1.139, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R2= -0.038, p < 0.05) and
full equation model (R2= 0.112, p < 0.05). The findings indicate that there is a
significant effect of OJSgender variable towards the relationship between overall job
satisfaction and intention to leave.
Table 8.14: Moderator Effect of Gender on the Relationship between Job Satisfaction
and Intention to Leave
R2 R2 Sig
intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction + e -1.139** -1.00** .000

c1gender+ e .038** -.016** .049

c1age+ d1OJSgender* + e .112** .055** .000

* OJSgender = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and gender variable
356
With the overall job satisfaction being included in the equation, the additional
factor of intention to leave has decreased the contribution of job satisfaction by -1.6%.
Then, with the job satisfaction and intention to leave included in the equation, it is
found that the OJSgender variable gives additional contribution of 5.5% of the
variance into the relationships between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave.
Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
fully moderated by gender. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et al.
(1995) who found that gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and
intention to leave among nurses in the USA.
Next, in order to examine the moderation effect more closely, the sample was
divided into two groups using the procedure of simple slope computation as described
by Jose (2008). This step was accomplished by entering the statistical information
from the hierarchical regression result into the table constructed by Jose (2008). The
moderating variable is depicted with two lines designated as the two groups of gender.
From the findings depicts in Figure 8.3, the plot indicated that male academics were
more likely than female academics to have the intention to leave when the level of job
satisfaction was low. Nevertheless, when the level of job satisfaction was high, male
academics were slightly lower than female academics in the intention to leave the
organisation.
357
Figure 8.3: Interaction of Age and Overall Job Satisfaction in Predicting
Intention to Leave
8.6.3 The Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job

This section answers the question of whether or not tenure moderates the
relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave among academics
in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions. This question is answered using the
assumption below:
Hypothesis 9(c): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is moderated by personal demographic of tenure
358
Table 8.15: Moderator Effect of Tenure on the Relationship between Job

R2 R2 Sig
intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction + e -1.345** -.969** .000

c1tenure+ e .070 .002 .088

c1age+ d1OJStenure* + e .089** .022** .031

* OJStenure = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and tenure variable
model is (R2= -1.345, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R2= 0.07, p = 0.088) and full
equation model (R2= 0.089, p < 0.05). The findings indicate that there is no
significant effect in the limited model in Equation 2., therefore, the relationship
between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is not moderated by tenure.
8.6.4 The Moderator Effect of Management Position on the Relationship

between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave
This section answers the question of whether or not holding management

position moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave among academics in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions. This question is
answered using the assumption below:
Hypothesis 9(d): The relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to
leave is moderated by personal demographic of holding
management position
359
Table 8.16: Moderator Effect of Holding Management Position on the Relationship
between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave

R2 R2 Sig
intention to leave = a + b1job satisfaction + e -1.305** -.940** .000

c1holding management position + e .002 .001 .918

c1age+ d1OJSmpost* + e -.045 -.025 .084
* OJSmpost = multiplier value of overall job satisfaction and holding management
position variable
model is (R2= -1.305, p < 0.05), limited equation model (R2= 0.02, p = 0.918) and full
equation model (R2= -0.045, p=0.084). The findings indicate that there is no
significant effect in the limited model in Equation 2 and full model in Equation 3.
Therefore, the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave is
not moderated by holding management position.
8.6.5 Summary of the Moderation Analysis Findings
The moderation roles of age, gender, tenure, and holding a management

position in the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave
were analysed using a hierarchical regression analysis. From the regression analysis,
three equations were considered and compared in identifying the interaction or
changes effect of all the four moderator variables on the relationship between overall
job satisfaction and intention to leave. The results indicated that only gender
moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,
while age, tenure, and holding management position were not moderators for
intention to leave. Another imperative finding is that, after completing the procedure
of simple slopes in order to examine the moderation effect of gender, it was found that
male academics were more likely than female academics to have an intention to leave
when the level of job satisfaction was low. Nevertheless, when the level of job
360
satisfaction was high, male academics were slightly lower than female academics in
the intention to leave the organisation. The implications of these moderation findings
will be elaborated further in Chapter 9.
8.7 Conclusion
This chapter has first determined the level of overall job satisfaction among
respondents in the quantitative study. The study found that respondents had a high
level of overall job satisfaction (M=3.69, SD=0.85). This finding compares very
favourably with findings of Castiglia (2006), Callister (2006), Goff (2004), Newby
(1999), and Oshagbemi (1997) and opposes several of the findings from past research
where academics had a moderate or low level of job satisfaction (Ksk, 2003;
Akpofure, 2006; Bilimoria et al., 2006). The finding in the current study reflected the
fact that job satisfaction is not a static, but dynamic occupational attitude that changes
based on various types of triggers or antecedents. In the quantitative study, the
outcome of high satisfaction among a large scale survey of academics in Malaysian
public universities might have resulted from their satisfaction with the current
situation in their workplace. These seem to include most of the antecedents of job
satisfaction in the preceding findings chapters, which include supportive environment
of the workplace, policies related to higher education, universitys support on research
and development, constructive communication among workers, promotion
opportunity, and satisfactory amount of fringe benefits.
Secondly, a vital finding in regards to overall job satisfaction in the
quantitative study was found where even though the majority of the academics
showed a tendency of having a good level of job satisfaction, there were also some of
them who conversely had an intention to find another job.
Third, in the survey findings, there were also differences of overall job
satisfaction based on different categories of demographic backgrounds. Male
academics were found to have a significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared
to their female counterparts. This finding is in contrast to Newbys (1999) finding
among academics in the USA, Oshagbemis (2000) among academics in the UK, and
Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009) among employees in small and medium
361
enterprises in Australia, where females reported higher job satisfaction than males.
Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff (2009),
where in their study among academic staff in a Malaysian university, they found that
there were no significant differences between male and female academics with regard
to overall job satisfaction, and they concluded that overall job satisfaction does not
change as a function of gender. Hence, the study filled the gap in the literature of job
satisfaction based on gender, where in this study with a large number of respondents
male academics in Malaysian public higher educational sector have a higher job
satisfaction than the female academics.
Next, the current study found that older academics had a significantly higher
job satisfaction level than the younger ones. This finding supports the findings of
Newby (1999), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Toker (2011). Conversely, the current
studys finding is inconsistent with Akpofures (2006) finding, where Akpofure found
that academics in Nigeria were less satisfied with their job when they get older.
Consequently, this studys finding in term of significant difference of
satisfaction based on age opposes the finding of Tu et al. (2005). They found that
there was no statistically significant difference in term of age for full-time Taiwanese
and Chinese academics at higher education in overall job satisfaction. The current
studys finding can be expected since as one becomes older, they have a better
perspective on their job and work as well as increased loyalty with the organisation
they are working with. In the current study, older academics seemed to be happy
working in their university and regarded their university positively.
The study also found that there was no statistically significant difference in
overall job satisfaction based on different groups of tenure among respondents. This is
contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi (2000) among university academics in the
UK, Sarker et al. (2003) among hotel employee in Thailand, and Toker (2011) among
a university academics in Turkey, where they found significant differences of
satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies respectively. As mentioned
in Chapter 2 (p55), very few attempts have been made to investigate the influence of
tenure with job satisfaction among Malaysian academics. Hence, the current studys
effort can be regarded as significant in filling the gap of literature on job satisfaction
and its relationship with tenure in Malaysian academics.
Another core finding in the current study is that academics without
management position had a significantly higher overall job satisfaction compared to
362
their counterparts. This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and Verdin (1983).
On the contrary, Ranz et al. (2001) in their study among psychiatrists in New York
found that psychiatrists in management positions experience significantly higher job
satisfaction compared to staff psychiatrists. This particular finding is also dissimilar
with the one of Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009), where non-managerial employees
of small and medium enterprises in Australia reporting lower level of job satisfaction
than managers.
Academics without a management position in the current study have a higher
job satisfaction than their counterparts with a management position which may be
based on their lower level of responsibilities in the university. Based on the focus
group interviews with academics at the operational level, the job satisfaction results
relate to their ability to be free to focus on their daily tasks such as lecturing,
conducting research, supervising students thesis, or writing without any need for
involvement in management tasks.
Fourth, the study had identified that the level of intention to leave among
respondents was low (M=2.48, SD=1.17). This finding supports the findings of
Barrett and Yates (2002), Nasurdin and Ramayah (2005), and Ng and Sorensen
(2008). On the other hand, this particular finding opposes the work of Villanueva and
Djurkovic (2009) who found a moderate level of intention to leave among small and
medium enterprises workers in Australia, and high level of intention to leave in
Huang, Lawler and Leis (2007) study among auditors in public accounting firms in
Taiwan. Low level of intention to leave among Malaysian public higher education
institutions can be expected in association with their high level of job satisfaction,
because according to past studies, job satisfaction is negatively related with intention
to leave. Most of these academics enjoyed a lot of benefits working in public
universities and they seemed to be happy with the current state of support by the
government, the salary system, the fringe benefits, and the nature of the work,
amongst others.
Fifth, there were also differences of intention to leave based on different
categories of demographic backgrounds in the online study. Female academics were
found to have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male
counterparts. This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts and Chonko (1994), where
they found that female academics have a higher intention to leave than male
academics. However, this finding is different to Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009)
363
study among small and medium enterprises workers in Australia where they found
that there was no effect based on different gender on the intention to leave. In this
study females may believe that they can find other jobs rather than remaining
committed and loyal.
Another finding showed that academics without a management position had a
significantly higher intention to leave than academics with management position. This
finding supports the findings in past research where workers in operational level have
higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers (see Villanueva &
Djurkovic, 2009). This may be due to the ability of non-management academics to
find other places of work to build their careers either with local public or private
universities,. Whereas those academics with management positions may have less
intention to obtain employment elsewhere because of their promotion to management,
their conditions of work and status at their places of work.
There was no difference in intention to leave among different age groups and
this is opposite to the finding of Huang, Lawler and Lei (2007) where they found
significant differences in intention to leave among different age categories. There was
also no difference in intention to leave among different tenure groups of respondents.
Hence, it can be concluded that age and tenure are not significant issues in regards to
the intention to leave the organisation among academics in the context of Malaysian
public higher education institutions.
Sixth, the chapter presented bivariate correlation findings in an attempt to
show the relationships between the investigated variables in the online survey. The
study found that there were positive and linear relationships and coefficient
correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction.
These imply that in the context of Malaysian public higher education institutions,
when an antecedent of job satisfaction among academics is increased, their overall job
satisfaction is also increased.
Specifically, from the results, government and universities policies and
support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, nature of work, communication,
and work-life balance, had positive and moderate linear relationships with overall job
satisfaction. Whereas, pay, promotion, and fringe benefits showed a positive but low
linear relationships with overall job satisfaction. Operating conditions was positively
correlated with overall job satisfaction, but the strength of the relationship was very
low. Hence, these findings can be considered as a significant and important attempt to
364
filling up the gap of the recent studies on the association between various antecedents
of satisfaction and job satisfaction specifically in the Malaysian higher educational
context.
The study also found that there was a negative and very high linear
relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. This finding
particularly supports the findings in Youngcourts (2005) study among employed
students in a university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.s (1995) longitudinal study
among registered nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA, and Falkenburg
and Schynss (2007) comparative study among electronic plants employees in
Netherland and Slovakia, where they found job satisfaction negatively correlated with
intention to leave the organisation.
Seventh, based on the results of mediation analysis, overall job satisfaction
significantly but partially mediated the relationships between government and
universities policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-
workers, nature of work, communication, and work-life balance with intention to
leave. Conversely, contingent rewards and operating conditions significantly and fully
mediated by overall job satisfaction in their relationships with intention to leave.
Since there is still no study initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the mediation
role of job satisfaction, the current studys findings of mediation analysis provides
new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable between the
antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence variable of job satisfaction which
is intention to leave.
Eighth, using the hierarchical regression analysis, it was found that only
gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to
leave. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et al. (1995) who found that
gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave
among nurses in the USA. The other demographic backgrounds variables of age,
tenure, and holding management position were not the moderators for the relationship
between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave.
Ninth, another important finding in the realm of moderation analysis was,
male academics were more likely than female academics to have the intention to quit
when the level of job satisfaction was low, and when the level of job satisfaction was
high, male academics were slightly lower than female academics in the intention to
leave the organisation.. Hence, the current studys findings on the moderation roles of
365
age, gender, tenure and management position in the relationship between overall job
satisfaction and intention to leave is a vital initial study made among academics in
Malaysian public higher educational sector.
Next, Chapter 9 identifies key findings of the research and concludes the
research by listing out contributions of the research towards theory, practice and
methodology. The chapter also proposes recommendations for future research.
366
Chapter 9
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Introduction
Chapter 9 presents the discussion, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

The chapter begins with a summary of the aims of the study, research questions,
research objectives, review of the literature, research methodology, and conceptual
framework used in the study. Following this, the chapter discusses the findings in
accordance with the questions of the study. Key contributions and implications from
the studys findings are discussed in regards to job satisfaction of university
academics that may be of interest to university management, policy makers, and
human resource management practitioners. Finally, recommendations for further
studies are also outlined. The organisation of Chapter 9 is illustrated in Figure 9.1.
9.2 Summary of the Current Study and Research Aims
In the first stage of the research, a qualitative study was conducted which took the
form of semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews with seventeen
interviewees, comprised of sixteen academics from three public universities and a
former Minister of Higher Education Ministry of Malaysia, in order to get a feel for
the key issues of job satisfaction, its antecedents and the possible outcomes.
The next stage of the study was the quantitative study. Quantitative data
collection in this stage consisted of a pilot study of the survey conducted through
emails, and a self-administered quantitative survey conducted through a web survey
tool named SurveyMonkey. A visual model for mixed-methods sequential design
procedures was designed following the steps proposed by Ivankova et al. (2006) to
explain the flow of each phase of data collection, procedure, and product used in the
current study (refer to Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3).
367
Section Description
9.1 This section introduces the chapter and
Introduction
gives an overview of the sections
9.2
Summary of the Current Study This section summarises the current study
& Research Aims and aims of the research
9.3 This section states the conceptual

Conceptual Framework,
framework of the study, research questions,
Research Questions, and
and research methodology
Research Methodology
This section summarises findings of the

9.4 study together with conclusions in each of
Findings & Conclusions
the major findings
9.5 This section discusses the implications and

Implications, Limitations &
limitations of the study together with
Recommendations
recommendations for further studies
9.6
The section concludes the chapter
Conclusion
This research was constructed with four focal aims. Firstly, this study aimed to
explore the antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in public higher
education institutions of Malaysia. Secondly, this study aimed to examine the
interactions between all the antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job
satisfaction of the academics and their intention to leave. Thirdly, this study aimed to
investigate the consequence of overall job satisfaction of academics on their intention
to leave the organisation. Fourthly, this study aimed to investigate the mediation and
moderation effects of several specific variables in the study.
368
9.3 Conceptual Framework, Research Questions, and Research Methodology
There were three level of variables included in the conceptual framework of the
current study, which were the antecedent variables of job satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to leave. In accordance with the current development of
public higher education in Malaysia, together with the past research evidenced in the
literature, this study included eleven antecedent variables of job satisfaction. These
eleven variables were initially assumed to have positive relationships with overall job
satisfaction, where it was hypothesised that an increase of the value in these variables
would increase the value of overall job satisfaction.
Intention to leave is included in the conceptual framework as the selected
consequence of overall job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public higher
education institutions. It was initially assumed that all antecedents of job satisfaction
and overall job satisfaction have negative relationships with intention to leave, where
an increase of value in these variables would decrease the value of intention to leave.
The initial conceptual framework of the current study also demonstrated the
relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction
with intention to leave. According to the findings in past studies, several relationships
between variables were assumed to have positive and negative relationships. The
relationships among investigated variables are shown in Figure 9.2 below.
369
Antecedents of
Demographics Backgrounds:
Job Satisfaction Age, Gender, Tenure, Management Position
Government and
Universities Policies and
Support
-
Organisational
Factors +
Pay Overall Job - Intention to
Promotion Satisfaction Leave
Supervision
+
Fringe Benefits
Contingent Rewards
Operating Conditions +
Co-workers
Nature of Work
Communication -
Work -Life Balance
Figure 9.2: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Note: (+) represents positive relationship assumption, (-) represents negative relationship assumption
370
Based on the literature reviews of the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall
job satisfaction, and intention to leave, Table 9.1 shows summary of research
questions together with the methodological design for the current study:
Table 9.1: Research Questions and Methodological Design for the Study
Research Questions Research Data Analysis
Methods
1. What are the levels of all job Qualitative Thematic analysis:
satisfaction antecedents among categorising issues
academics in public higher discussed accordingly to
education institutions in Malaysia? each variable
using frequencies,
percentages, and mean
values
2. Are there any differences of Qualitative Thematic analysis:
satisfaction with antecedents of job categorising issues
satisfaction based on gender, age, discussed accordingly to
tenure, and management position? each variable

using t-test and ANOVA
3. What is the level of overall job Quantitative Statistical analysis:

satisfaction among academics in using frequencies,
public higher education institutions percentages, and mean
in Malaysia? values
4. What is the level of intention to Quantitative Statistical analysis:
leave among academics in public using frequencies,
higher education institutions in percentages, and mean
Malaysia? values
overall job satisfaction based on using t-test and ANOVA
gender, age, tenure, and
intention to leave based on gender, using t-test and ANOVA
age, tenure, and management
position?
7. What are the relationships Statistical analysis:
between the antecedents of job Quantitative using Pearsons
satisfaction, overall job correlations
satisfaction, and intention to leave?
371
8. Does overall job satisfaction Statistical analysis:
mediate the relationships between Quantitative - Using multiple
each of the antecedents of job regression analysis
satisfaction with intention to leave? consisting of four
regression equations in
establishing mediation
- Implementing
Mackinnon et al. (1998)s
Distribution of Product
method = Z Z, to assess
for the significance of
mediation effect
9. Do demographic variables Statistical analysis:
moderate the relationship between Quantitative - Using hierarchical
overall job satisfaction and regression analysis by
intention to leave? looking at the interaction
term in establishing
moderation
- Using Jose (1998)s
special graph calculation
to draw interaction term
between different group of
demographic backgrounds
9.4 Findings and Conclusions
This section presents the findings of all research questions that were used in this
study. Conclusions drawn from this based on each research question are summarised
in this section. Table 9.2 shows the summary for the current studys findings.
372
Table 9.2: Summary for the Current Studys Findings

(n=17) (n=1078)
Job Satisfaction
Antecedents Arising Overall Management
Overall Satisfaction Gender Age Tenure
Issues Satisfaction Position
Government and Mostly satisfied 1. Most of the satisfied respondents on the overall No significant No
Universities (9 respondents) satisfaction towards GUPS were those in the Moderate difference Older significant Academics
Policies & operational level. (Mean= 3.49, between males academics difference without
Support (GUPS) 2. Specific issues raised: SD= 0.66) and female were more between management
- Funds for research & development activities satisfied seniors and position were
- Support for academics to further their studies juniors more satisfied
- Policy on university-industry partnership
- Internationalisation of public universities
Pay Majority were 1. Academics in management level were more satisfied Moderate
satisfied towards pay (Mean= 3.17, Males were Older Senior Academics
(10 respondents) 2. Equity issues in comparison to private universities and SD= 0.81) more satisfied academics academics without
senior academics than females were more were more management
satisfied satisfied position were
more satisfied
Promotion Majority were neither 1. Both academics in management and operational level Moderate
dissatisfied nor had a modest level of satisfaction with promotion (Mean= 3.34, Males were Older Senior Academics
satisfied SD= 0.99) more satisfied academics academics without
(11 respondents) 2. Equity issue raised by a senior academic on her than females were more were more management
dissatisfaction with the promotion opportunities for satisfied satisfied position were
newer staff more satisfied
Supervision Some were satisfied 1. Satisfactions were mostly from management people, Moderate No significant No significant
(6 respondents) and while dissatisfactions were from the operational level (Mean= 3.53, difference in Older Senior difference in
some were 2. Specific issues raised: SD= 0.79) satisfaction academics academics satisfaction with
dissatisfied - Fairness and consideration with were more were more supervision
(5 respondents) - Management strategy and leadership supervision satisfied satisfied
373
Fringe Benefits Half of the 1. No obvious differences of overall satisfaction among Moderate No significant No No significant
respondents were different demographic backgrounds (Mean= 3.09, difference in Older significant difference in
neither dissatisfied 2. No issues raised other than general state of satisfaction SD= 0.74) satisfaction academics difference in satisfaction with
nor satisfied with fringe benefits with fringe were more satisfaction fringe befits
(8 respondents) benefits satisfied with fringe
benefits
Contingent Majority were neither 1. Issue of Recognition Moderate
Rewards dissatisfied nor (Mean= 3.19, Males were Older Senior Academics
satisfied SD= 0.78) more satisfied academics academics without
(12 respondents) than females were more were more management
satisfied satisfied position were
more satisfied
Operating Mostly were 1. Dissatisfactions came from both academics in Low No significant No significant
Conditions dissatisfied management and in operational level (Mean= 2.51, difference in Older Senior difference in
(9 respondents) 2.Specific issues raised: SD=0.82) satisfaction academics academics satisfaction with
- Facilities at workplace with were more were more operating
- Uninterrupted working conditions operating satisfied satisfied conditions
- Work responsibilities conditions
Co-Workers Most were satisfied 1.Satisfaction was shared by both groups of academics in Moderate No No significant
(9 respondents) management and operational level (Mean= 3.51, Males were Older significant difference in
2. Some academics in the operational level were SD= 0.62) more satisfied academics difference in satisfaction with
dissatisfied than females were more satisfaction co-workers
3. Specific issues raised: satisfied with co-
- Cooperation among colleagues workers
- The nature of constructive competition among
colleagues
Nature of Work Most of them were 1. Satisfactions came from both academics in High No significant
satisfied management and operational level (Mean= 4.06, Males were Older Senior difference in
(7 respondents) 2. Specific issues raised: SD= 0.59) more satisfied academics academics satisfaction with
followed by some - The job itself than females were more were more nature of work
who were neither - Students factor satisfied satisfied
dissatisfied nor - Nature of teaching and research
satisfied
(5 respondents)
374
Communication Majority were neither 1. None of the respondents were satisfied Moderate
dissatisfied nor 2. All respondents in management level were neither (Mean= 3.30, Males were Older Senior Academics
satisfied dissatisfied nor satisfied SD= 0.82) more satisfied academics academics without
(10 respondents) 3. Dissatisfactions came from academics in the than females were more were more management
and operational level satisfied satisfied position were
the rest were 4. Specific issues raised: more satisfied
dissatisfied - Poor communication
(6 respondents) - Misunderstanding among academics and administration
staff
Work-Life 6 respondents were 1. All of the satisfied respondents were those in the Moderate No No significant
Balance satisfied management level (Mean= 3.18, Males were Older significant difference
and 2. Most of the respondents in the operational level were SD= 0.65) more satisfied academics difference between
5 respondents were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, while two of them were than females were more between academics with
neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied seniors and and without
nor satisfied 3. Specific issues raised: juniors management
- the issue of working position
overtime and on
weekend
- family support
Survey Findings
(n=1078)
Descriptive and Empirical Findings in the Quantitative Study
Overall Management
Gender Age Tenure
Level Position
High No
Overall Job Satisfaction (M=3.69, Males had a Older significant Academics
SD=0.85) higher overall academics difference without
job satisfaction had a higher between management
than females overall job seniors and position had a
satisfaction juniors higher overall
job satisfaction
375
Intention to Leave Low No No
(M=2.48, Females had a significant significant Academics
SD=1.17). higher level of difference difference without
intention to between age between management
leave than groups seniors and position had a
males juniors higher intent to
leave
Antecedents of Job Satisfaction with Overall Job Satisfaction 1. Positive correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction.
2. Government and universities policies and support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, nature of work,
communication, and work-life balance show positive and moderate relationships with overall job satisfaction.
3. Pay, promotion, and fringe benefits have positive and low correlations with overall job satisfaction.
4. Contingent rewards showed the strongest level of correlation with job satisfaction.
5. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of correlation with overall job satisfaction.
Antecedents of Job Satisfaction with Intention to leave 1. Negative and linear correlations between all antecedents of job satisfaction with intention to leave.
2. Government and universities policies and support, supervision, contingent rewards, co-workers, and
communication had negative and moderate relationships with intention to leave the organisation.
3. Pay, promotion, fringe benefits, nature of work, and work-life balance, had negative and low correlations with
intention to leave.
4. Communication showed the highest strength of negative and linear correlation with intention to leave.
5. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of negative and linear correlation in the relationship with
intention to leave.
Overall Job Satisfaction with Intention To Leave Negative and very high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave
Mediating Role of Overall Job Satisfaction 1. Overall job satisfaction significantly but partially mediates the relationships between government and
universities policies and support, pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, co-workers, nature of work,
communication, and work-life balance with intention to leave.
2. Overall job satisfaction significantly and fully mediates the relationships between contingent rewards and
operating conditions with intention to leave.
Moderating roles of demographic backgrounds 1. Only gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention to leave, while age, tenure,
and holding management position were not moderators.
2. Male academics were more likely than female academics to have an intention to leave when the level of job
satisfaction was low.
376
9.4.1 Key Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS, Organisational Antecedents, and
Work-Life Balance
As elaborated thoroughly in Chapter 1, the current study initiated an important

attempt to incorporate and regard GUPS as a pertinent antecedent of job satisfaction
of academics in Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions. Hence, the findings
in the current study showed several interesting findings in this regard.
First, interview respondents tended to express their satisfaction with the
support given by the government and their universities, in particular support for them
to further studies. Several respondents in the qualitative study especially those in the
operational level mentioned that they were satisfied with the support. This was so
because academics weighed the support they got against the scarce chance among
academics in private universities. Furthermore, the current study reports the same
outcome of Chen et al. (2006), where support on research provision of further
education subsidies by the government and universities were regarded as important
attributes towards academics job satisfaction.
The above arguments reflect that most of the private higher educational
institutions in Malaysia have a very strict policy on sending academics to further
studies. Their academic members need to go through a very stringent process of
getting a place to further their studies because their universities want to spend their
monetary funds only on their most capable academics which in turn will benefit the
university.
Next, the policy on university-industry partnership was discussed as a factor
that led to mixed responses of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among respondents.
Although the issue was not discussed by the majority of the respondents in the
qualitative study, from the quotes and literature it appears to be an issue to be further
investigated. This is so, evidenced by several interview respondents contentions that
the policy does lead to academics being overloaded. A program coordinator of a
public university branch expanded on this issue which according to him, academics in
public university are happy to act positively upon the policy, with a condition
teaching loads should be at the optimum level. The recommendations specifically on
this issue will be discussed in the next sub-section of operating conditions.
Subsequently, the issues of funds for research and development activities and
internationalisation of public universities led to dissatisfactions among interview
377
respondents. The issue of funds for research and development particularly, was
perceived as a trigger to academics dissatisfaction who work in the non-established
universities because of the small amount of research grant they could apply for.
Then, in terms of the issue of internationalisation of public universities, it was
also argued as a dissatisfaction factor among academics. Viewed as an ambitious
effort of the ministry and the universities by several interview respondents, it was
found that at the operational level, internationalisation of public universities is linked
to work overload. All in all, the findings from the qualitative study pointed out that
respondents were generally satisfied with GUPS.
In a broader scale of respondents in the quantitative study, the overall
satisfaction level with GUPS has been sought and the results showed that the
satisfaction among academics was moderate. The findings in the quantitative study on
the general level of satisfaction with GUPS cannot be compared with any other past
research since there is no similar attempt has been done in the Malaysian higher
education context. However, the current studys finding are in keeping with the
finding of Ghazi et al. (2010), where they found that academics in a Pakistan
university were moderately satisfied with the dimension of organisational policies and
practices.
This might be so, based on the fact that not all academics in Malaysian public
universities seemed to feel satisfied with the policies and support of the Government.
As mentioned by Thillaisundaram (2003: 19), academics in Malaysian higher
education institutions were mostly been exposed to the educational system applied in
various developed countries when they were there to further their education. Their
experience with the policies imposed by the foreign educational authorities where
they were furthering their studies, gave them the understanding and mind-set of what
are lacking in the Malaysian higher educational policies and system. When the
Malaysian Government could not practice and implement the same level of beneficial
policies such as the support for research and development activities, status-quo as a
respected academics in the society, the perks and benefits given, and economic
stability, this was regarded as a key dissatisfactory cause that affected their level of
job satisfaction.
In another sense, the findings in the current study also support Seashore and
Tabers (1975) assertion that this variable is indeed relevant as an indicator or
antecedent to job satisfaction. Furthermore, the role of economic, political, cultural,
378
and similar broad factors (in the current study is GUPS) need to be taken into account
to understand job satisfaction (Seashore & Taber, 1975: 349) in future research.
In accordance with the work of Mohd Noor (2004) among teachers in
Malaysia, Newby (1999), among principals in the USA and Spector (1997) among
various workers in several world continents the current study found several key
findings regarding the satisfaction with nine organisational antecedents among
academics through both qualitative and quantitative means. As shown in Table 9.2, it
was found that academics showed a high satisfaction with nature of work and low
satisfaction with operating conditions. Alternatively, their satisfactions with the other
antecedents were at a moderate level.
In regard to high satisfaction with the nature of work, factors such as being
attracted to teaching, students academic achievements, and the positive nature of
teaching and research were found to be the key contributors. Furthermore, the
quantitative findings oppose the findings of Oshagbemi (1997b), where university
academics in the UK have a low to moderate level of satisfaction with nature of work.
While the other academics in other countries displayed low to moderate level of
satisfaction with the nature of work, the current studys finding reflects the unique
culture of the workplace in the Malaysian context. The specific issues occurred in the
discussion among academics in the qualitative study showed that Malaysian
academics reflect the local culture that is shared together among Malaysian
academics. For instance, in Malaysian culture, individualism is something that is not
welcomed in any workplace including in the higher educational setting (see Abu
Bakar, 1985, Arshad, 2007, and Chng et al., 2010), hence, academics in the
Malaysian higher education institutions are keen to work collectively. The Ministry of
Higher Education also actively promotes the culture of working collectively, as
evidenced by the greater amount of research dollars available for groups of academics
working together compared to those doing research individually (see Ministry of
Higher Education, 2012).
On the other hand, there was a low level of satisfaction showed by the
majority of respondents in the qualitative study and quantitative study with operating
conditions. The findings support the outcome of Oshagbemi (1999) among university
teachers in the UK, and Koustelios (2001) among Greek teachers where low
satisfaction was found among the respondents with operating conditions or working
facilities. Interestingly, the cause of low satisfaction among academics in the current
379
study were derived from several important factors, which were facilities at the
workplace, interrupted working conditions, and holding too many responsibilities.
These were similar with the findings of Koustelios (2001) among Greek teachers and
Oshagbemi (1999) among academics in the UK.
In the issue of facilities at the workplace, several interview respondents
suggested that basic needs to teach (such as classroom, stationeries, photocopy
machine, and so forth) should be prepared and well maintained by the faculty to
sustain the smoothness of teaching and learning process; it was evident that the poor
condition of the facilities in the university led to dissatisfaction.
The imbalance of monetary support between established public universities
with the other newly developed public universities in Malaysia is obvious (Utusan
Malaysia, 2007e). A large amount of funding was divided between research
universities, but then disproportionally divided amongst universities. This is not
regarded by most public universities management as unfair treatment (Mohamed,
2006) since this is the policy introduced by the government to enable universities to
focus more on the research universities to enhance and nurture R&D.
Interrupted working conditions also found to be a factor that impedes
academics job satisfaction. The fact that almost half of the interview respondents in
the qualitative study spoke extensively on this particular issue showed the significant
impact it has on academics happiness at workplace. Interruptions to teaching from
administrative work especially if it was unplanned were clear impediments to
academics being able to get on with their teaching and research.
The issue of work responsibilities was also revealed by many interview
respondents as a cause of dissatisfaction in terms of operating conditions. Several
arguments made by those in the management and operational level evidenced the
importance of having adequate time for academics to focus on their main tasks of
teaching and doing research, rather than focusing too much on administrative and
unrelated tasks.
Pertaining to academics overall satisfaction with work-life balance,
respondents were moderately satisfied towards work-life balance policy. This
particular finding was in accordance with the findings of Huang et al. (2007) among
employees in Taiwan, where they found that their respondents were moderately
satisfied with work-life balance policy. This might be so in light to the nature of work
in university where there may be more flexibility that permits academics to focus on
380
balancing the needs at the workplace and their family and personal needs. That is why
this particular finding was inconsistent with the outcomes of Premeaux et al. (2007)
among workers in several manufacturing and service sector organisations in the
southern United States, and Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne (2007), which found that
their respondents have a low level of satisfaction with work-life balance. Workers in
manufacturing and service sector organisations have a very tight and rigid working
time that disallowed them to experience the equal freedom like academics in the
university in juggling the needs of work and life.
Subsequently, the result of the quantitative study shows that respondents had a
high level of overall job satisfaction. This finding is similar to the findings of Toker
among academics in Turkey (2011), Castiglia (2006) among a private college
academics in US, Goff (2004) among community college academics in US, Newby
(1999), Callister (2006) among science and engineering academics, and Oshagbemi
(1997) among academics in the UK. Conversely, this particular finding is in contrast
with the findings of Akpofure et al. (2006) who found that higher education
academics in Nigeria were highly dissatisfied with their job, and the findings of
Ksk (2003) in Turkey and Bilimoria et al. (2006) in the USA where university
academics had a moderate level of job satisfaction. The finding is also not consistent
with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff (2009) where they found that academics in a
Malaysian university were moderately satisfied with their job. Looking at the current
study findings, academics in Malaysian public university are happy with their job.
This research found that this may be due to the continuous effort of the government to
provide support for academics in doing their work at their workplace, reviewing the
system of salary and rewards from time to time, huge opportunities for promotion,
good supervision, and the ability of balancing the needs between work and life.
Additionally, the finding in the current study reflected the fact that job
satisfaction is not a static but dynamic occupational attitude that changes based on
various types of triggers or antecedents. In the quantitative study, the outcome of high
satisfaction among a large scale of academics in Malaysian public universities may
have been due to their their happiness with the current situation of their workplace.
These include most of the antecedents of job satisfaction in the preceding findings
chapters, which include supportive environment of the workplace, policies related to
higher education, universitys support on research and development, constructive
381
communication among workers, promotion opportunity, and satisfactory amount of
fringe benefits.
9.4.2 Key Findings: Satisfaction Based on Demographic Differences
9.4.2.1 Gender
In regards to the findings related to gender, there were no significant differences of
satisfaction with GUPS based on different gender of the academics. This was so
because there is no such policy, program, or strategy implementation that is different
between genders, where both genders are treated equally. This is based on the
assertion of Raja Zainal Abidin (2007) where the government without having any
special focus on any racial group, economic stability, ethnicity, religion and including
gender, has given a lot of subsidies and monetary allocation to develop the nations
human capital which is one of the prerequisites of attaining higher value-added
growth based on the recent global trends and development of knowledge and
technology.
Then, male academics were found to be more satisfied with pay than female
academics, nevertheless, in reality, there were no differences in terms of pay earned
by both male and female academics in Malaysian Public Higher Educational
Institutions (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2006). Females seemed to be
less satisfied because they might think that they should get a better and higher pay.
Such responses came from the experience of having too many additional
responsibilities at the workplace other than teaching. Additionally, evidenced by an
issue of work responsibility (see Chapter 6) raised in the qualitative study it seems
that female academics desire an increase in pay in accordance with the additional
work and responsibilities that they have contributed to the university.
Next, the differences of satisfaction with promotion between genders were
obvious in the quantitative study. Females were less satisfied than males. In reality,
the practice of promotion that takes into account gender is not common in Malaysian
public higher education institutions. In fact, there were several public universities in
Malaysia which had promoted female academics to be Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice
Chancellor, Dean, and so on (see Ministry of Higher Education, 2012). The results in
the quantitative study might come from the individual standpoint among female
academics that they want to see that more women (especially themselves) get a better
382
chance to be promoted in their universities. The finding is interesting, as a crystal
clear signal to the government and university in acknowledging the ability of women
to be leaders in the university.
In regards to the findings of contingent rewards satisfaction, the findings do
not mean that females get fewer rewards than males as there is no such policy of
giving rewards based on gender differences in Malaysian public universities (See
Economic Planning Unit, 2007 and Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012).
Female academics may think that they should get more than what they get without
knowledge of or comparing with that obtained by male academics.
Female academics in the quantitative study showed a lower level of
satisfaction towards co-workers than male academics. However there was no strong
evidence of this in the qualitative study. Several statements by female academics
represent their concerns with co-workers issue. They spoke of issues of no family
spirit and no family surroundings in the workplace which demonstrates this as an
issue that the university should consider in improving the satisfaction of female
academics with co-workers.
Next, male academics were more satisfied with nature of work, which is
different with the finding by Okpara, Squillace and Erondu (2005) among academics
in the US. Several female academics defined their dissatisfactions with nature of work
by discussing several important issues like the dissapointment with the poor
communication flow and misinterpretation of information among workers. Females
may be more concerned with the social nature of the work surroundings than males
and these issues should be catered by the university in providing a better nature of
work especially among female academics.
Finally, the findings regarding work-life balance satisfaction has extended
past research in the realm of gender differences in work-life balance satisfaction. The
findings also support Deery and Jagos (2009) framework that examines work-life
balance in terms of putting gender as among the important elements in completing
their proposed work-life balance model. Furthermore, in the current study, female
academics may feel the heavier burden on creating the balance between work and life.
Evidenced by the arguments by several female academics in the key-person and focus
group interviews in the qualitative study, females may be more concerned with the
family and personal life needs. When the university required them to fulfil more
stringent policies of working such as the implementation of new KPIs, these female
383
academics may have felt uncomfortable thinking of more time that they could spend
with their family, by doing things needed at the workplace.
9.4.2.2 Age
All in all, based on age differences in the quantitative study, older academics
were found to be significantly more satisfied than their younger counterparts with all
the antecedents of job satisfaction. The findings are interesting in reflecting how
academics become more satisfied with the antecedents of job satisfaction when they
get older. Evidenced by the arguments made in the qualitative study by several
academics (taking satisfaction with GUPS as an example), the government and the
universities are serious in taking care of the welfare of academic staff by providing a
continuous improvement in university policies, development, and support especially
for academics.
For instance, in terms of the higher satisfaction with GUPS among older
academics, this can be predicted, since the outcome of the current study is almost
identical with the work of Ali et al. (2012). They had investigated academics in a
public university situated at the northern region of Malaysia where they found that
older and more experienced academics have a higher career satisfaction level with
several factors including the changes and development of the universitys policy.
Furthermore, based on some of the major theme emerged from the open-ended
responses by the young academics in their study, reflected that they were disappointed
because the university applied a more stringent policy on promotion on them
compared to their older counterpart (Ali et al, 2012: 42). Generally, the others in the
qualitative study explained that they are happy with the continuous positive support
and developments because the government is upgrading the quality of higher
education, and specifically the quality of academic staff. This is a verification of why
older academics were more satisfied than the younger ones. As argued by Oshagbemi
(1999), older academics regarded that they get better (in all forms of antecedents)
from their universities compared to what they received in the past. Next, taking
satisfaction with operating conditions as an example, the findings in the qualitative
and quantitative study showed that older academics were more satisfied than their
younger counterparts. This is because they can easily adapt to the difficulties or
problems at workplace. Evidenced by the responses given in the interviews, they
384
thought that any problems that occurred needed to be treated as a challenge, and that
in itself could lead to job satisfaction.
Generally, it was found that in terms of tenure, senior academics were more
satisfied with all antecedents of job satisfaction than the juniors, except for
satisfaction with GUPS, fringe benefits, co-workers, and work-life balance. Several
key findings were obvious in this case. According to the quantitative findings, juniors
were either less satisfied or equally satisfied with all the antecedents of job
satisfaction compared to their seniors. This might be so because they think that they
get lesser than what the seniors obtained which may be due to their lower positions
such as tutors. As reflected by the tutors argument, their dissatisfaction seemed to be
based on their job status, and their use of extensive knowledge and skills that were not
being compensated for.
Subsequently, in terms of satisfaction based on whether an academic holds a
management position or not, it was found in the quantitative study that academics
without management position were more satisfied than those with management
position in terms of GUPS, pay, promotion, contingent rewards, and communication.
No significant differences were found between the two categories of academics in
satisfaction with supervision, fringe benefits, operating conditions, co-workers, nature
of work, and work-life balance.
In regard to management levels, these specific findings are interesting. First, it
was found that there were no single antecedents where academics in management
position were more satisfied than those in the operational level. It seems that to be an
academic with additional responsibilities, and authority, even with extra allowances is
not enough to make him/her to be satisfied with their job. Secondly, the state of
satisfaction based on management position was different to those in the past studies.
For instance, in Rad and Yarmohammadians (2006) study, employees without
management position had a lower level of satisfaction with pay, contingent rewards,
and communication compared to the senior, middle, and first line managers at Isfahan
University Hospitals in Iran. This is an issue that should be carefully administered by
the university in order to maintain the happiness level, and furthermore the
commitment and enthusiasm of the academics that hold management positions.
Thirdly, there are no other similar findings that could be found in the literature
specifically on the satisfaction with pay among Malaysian higher education academics
by holding management position. Therefore, the current studys findings are
385
considered as an important contribution in the realm of pay satisfaction among
academics higher education institutions with and without management positions.
Fourthly, these particular findings of satisfaction with GUPS among
academics based on different demographic characteristics are key outcomes in this
research. Since there was no literature stating any similar findings among academic
staff, these findings are of importance in filling the gap of research on the satisfaction
towards government and universities policies and support.
Finally, in association with overall job satisfaction, it was found in the
quantitative study that in term of gender, male academics had a significantly higher
overall job satisfaction compared to female academics. This finding contrasts to
Newbys (1999), Oshagbemis (2000), and Villanueva and Djurkovics (2009)
findings. Also, this finding is not consistent with the finding of Noordin and Jusoff
(2009), where they found no significant differences between male and female
academics with regard to overall job satisfaction. The particular finding in the current
study reiterates the similar pattern of satisfaction with the antecedents of job
satisfaction elaborated in the previous section. Subsequently, the study filled the gap
in the literature of job satisfaction based on different genders, where male academics
in Malaysian public higher educational sector have a higher job satisfaction than the
female academics. Females may have lower overall job satisfaction due to status
differences or family-work life conflict.
In term of age, older academics have a significantly higher level of overall job
satisfaction than their younger counterparts. This studys finding compares very
favourably with the findings of Newby (1999), Noordin and Jusoff (2009), and Toker
(2011). Conversely, the current studys finding is inconsistent with the findings of
Akpofure (2006), Sarker et al. (2003), Stemple (2004), and Tu et al. (2005). The
current studys finding can be expected since mostly as one ages increased
commitment and loyalty results.. In the current study, older academics seemed to be
happy working in their university and regarded the university positively.
Next, pertaining to academics overall satisfaction by tenure, it was found that
that there was no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction among
the five different tenure groups. This is contradictory to the findings of Oshagbemi
(2000), Sarker et al. (2003), and Toker (2011), where they found significant
differences of satisfaction among different tenure groups in their studies respectively.
This is a clear sign that shows that tenure is not an issue that has any impact on
386
academics job satisfaction. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (p55), very few attempts have
been made to investigate the influence of tenure with job satisfaction among
Malaysian academics. Hence, the current studys effort can be regarded as significant
in filling the gap of literature on job satisfaction and its relationship with tenure.
Finally, in regards to management position, it was found that academics
without management position had a significantly higher overall job satisfaction
compared to their counterparts. This finding is similar to the finding of Lynch and
Verdin (1983) but opposes the work of Ranz et al. (2001) and Villanueva and
Djurkovic (2009). Academics without a management position may have a higher job
satisfaction due to their lower levels of responsibilities in the university.. Based on the
focus group interviews with academics in the operational level, some of them spoke
of being able to be free to focus on their daily tasks such as lecturing, conducting
research, supervising students thesis, or writings without any need to be involved in
management tasks. This was regarded as satisfactory factors among the academics.
9.4.3 Key Findings: Level of Intention to Leave the Organisation
The result in the quantitative study indicates that respondents had a low level
of intention to leave the organisation. This finding supports the outcomes of Barrett
and Yates (2002), Nasurdin and Ramayah (2005), Ng and Sorensen (2008), Roberts
and Chonko (1994), and Bartram et al. (2012), where the level of intention to leave
was low among their respondents. On the contrary, this particular finding opposes the
work of Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) and Huang, Lawler and Lei (2007). Low
levels of intention to leave among Malaysian public higher education institutions can
be expected in association with their high level of job satisfaction, because according
to past studies, job satisfaction is negatively related with intention to leave. Most of
these academics enjoyed a lot of benefits working in public universities and they
seemed to be happy with the current state of support by the government, the salary
system, the fringe benefits, the nature of the work, and several other factors.
In accordance to the finding in the quantitative study, it was found that female
academics have a significantly higher intention to leave compared to their male
counterparts. This finding reiterates the finding of Roberts and Chonko (1994). In this
regard females intention to leave may be related to their lower levels of job
387
satisfaction. . This might be the case in the current study, where females might think
that they can find other jobs rather than remain with the current university.
Next, it was found that there is no significant difference in intention to leave
based on different groups of age. This finding is opposite to the finding of Huang,
Lawler and Lei (2007) where they found significant difference in intention to leave
among different age categories. Hence, it can be concluded that age and tenure are not
a significant issues in regards to the intention to leave the organisation among
academics in the context of Malaysian public higher education institutions.
Then, intention to leave is not influenced by different level of tenure among
academics. Finally, academics without management positions had a significantly
higher intention to leave than academics with management position. This finding
supports the findings in past research where workers at the operational level have a
higher intention to leave the organisation than the managers (Villanueva & Djurkovic,
2009). This shows that operational levels of academics have less loyalty. Once
workers become managers their commitment seems to increase. This is supported by
Brown (2008) and DeMato (2001). Additionally, this might be so, based on the
findings of satisfaction in previous chapters, because academics at the management
level find the jobs more convenient in terms of the status they have, the salary and
rewards they earn. On the contrary, academics in the operational level might think
that they could be happier if they work elsewhere and that may lead to their
intention to leave the current organisation.
9.4.4 Key Findings: The Relationships between the Antecedents of Job

Satisfaction, Overall Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Leave
Based on the correlation result in the quantitative study, in terms of the

relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction,
there are positive and linear relationships and coefficient correlations between all
antecedents of job satisfaction with overall job satisfaction. These imply that when an
antecedent of job satisfaction is increased, overall job satisfaction is also increased.
These findings were in accordance with the findings of Akpofure et al. (2006), Barret
and Yates (2002), Donnelly (2006), Koustelios (2001), Mohd Noor (2004), and
Spector (1997).
388
Of all, albeit its moderate level of relationship with overall job satisfaction,
contingent rewards showed the strongest level of correlation in regards to its
relationship with job satisfaction. This highlights that workers desire to be rewarded
according to their performance. Subsequently, operating conditions showed the
weakest strength of positive and linear correlation in the relationship with overall job
satisfaction. This weak relationship between operating conditions with overall job
satisfaction is considered as almost negligible relationship according to the Guilfords
rule of thumb as explained in Chapter 3. This points to workers not really being
impacted by poor working facilities in measuring their overall levels of job
satisfaction, despite being spoken of in the interviews.
In regards to the relationships between the antecedents of job satisfaction and
intention to leave, it was found in the quantitative study that there are negative and
linear relationships and coefficient correlations between all job satisfaction
antecedents with intention to leave. These imply that when an antecedent of job
satisfaction increases, intention to leave decreases.
Additionally, communication showed the highest strength of negative and
linear correlation with intention to leave, thus demonstrating the impact of social
factors on work attitudes. Operating conditions showed the weakest strength of
negative and linear correlation in the relationship with intention to leave. Again,
similar to the correlation findings with overall job satisfaction, this weak relationship
between operating conditions with intention to leave the organisation is considered as
almost negligible relationship according to the Guilfords rule of thumb.
Next, it was found in the quantitative study that there was a negative and very
high linear relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave. This
is considered as a very dependable relationship based on Guilfords rule of thumb.
This finding particularly supports the findings in Youngcourts (2005) study
among employed students in a university in the USA, Eberhardt et al.s (1995)
longitudinal study among registered nurses in an upper Midwestern state of the USA,
and Falkenburg and Schynss (2007) comparative study among electronic plants
employees in Netherland and Slovakia, where they found job satisfaction negatively
correlated with intention to leave the organisation. The current studys finding
contribute to literature in highlighting the negative linear relationship between job
satisfaction and intention to leave among academics in Malaysian public higher
education, conforming the same outcomes across geographical, and national contexts.
389
9.4.5 Key Findings: Mediation and Moderation Roles
As elaborated in the previous chapters and summarised in Table 9.2, the

purpose of having mediation analysis is to examine whether an independent variable
leads to another variable (the mediator), which then transmits the effects of the
independent variable to the dependent variable. Therefore, since there is still no study
initiating such a comprehensive analysis on the mediation role of job satisfaction, the
current studys findings of mediation analysis provides new insights into
implementing job satisfaction as a mediator variable between the antecedents of job
satisfaction and the consequence variable of job satisfaction which is intention to
leave.
On the other hand, the moderation roles of age, gender, tenure, and holding
management position in the relationship between overall job satisfaction and intention
to leave were analysed using a hierarchical regression analysis. The results indicated
that only gender moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with
intention to leave, while age, tenure, and holding management position were not
moderators for intention to leave. This finding supported the outcome of Eberhardt et
al. (1995) who found that gender moderates the relationship between job satisfaction
and intention to leave among nurses in the USA. Furthermore, it was found that when
the level of job satisfaction was high, male academics were slightly lower than female
academics in regards to the intention to leave the organisation. Hence the impact of
gender is important as females may believe they have less ability to obtain another job
and even with low job satisfaction may be more likely to remain with the university.
Or else male academics may believe that their working lives will improve over time
due to promotion prospects or salary adjustments.
9.5 Implications, Limitations & Recommendations
9.5.1 Contributions to Knowledge
In regards to the theoretical standpoint, several content and process theories of

job satisfaction are found to be supported by and in line with the findings in the
390
current study. First, as elaborated extensively in Chapter 2 on the gist of content
theories, the current study found that academics in the investigated higher education
institutions regard all the eleven antecedents of job satisfaction as important drivers
towards their overall job satisfaction. Maslows Hierarchical Needs Theory for
instance, is found to be related very much to the current study. It assists in answering
the question of what kind of organisational factors have significant influence on
academics job satisfaction. Hence, this theory helps in terms of clarifying and
associating specific needs of university academics in Malaysia with the investigated
organisational factors which in the current study are the antecedents of academics job
satisfaction. It also helps the university and policy makers to categorize and take
action on focusing academics needs based on their priority from the lower level to
the next higher ones.
As evidenced in the qualitative study, academics in Malaysian public
universities resemble what Maslow (1954) describes as always wanting. Once a
need is fulfilled, then the other higher needs must be fulfilled. For instance, key-
persons in the management level, regarded pay as no longer the main driver towards
their job satisfaction. As their need to obtain a good pay scheme has been fulfilled,
they are craving a more satisfying need, which according to Maslow is regarded as a
higher level of needs compared to pay which is a physiological need. This was
evident in the high ranking of communication in the study. In the sphere of safety
needs, the issue of safe working conditions, company benefits, and job security, are
several of the factors that workers in the management level desire. To several extents
these people will desire self-esteem and status needs to make them satisfied, which
include feelings of achievement and responsibility.
In the same sense, academics in the operational level yielded their
dissatisfactions with pay, and portrayed that without the fulfilment of this need, no
other needs could make them happier to work in the university. This key finding was
particularly found in the quantitative part of the study.
On the other hand, the fulfilment of needs is not necessarily a progression
through from lower level to higher levels of needs. According to Mullins (2006), even
though Maslow suggests that most people have these basic needs in about the order
indicated, he also makes it clear that the hierarchy is not necessarily a fixed order.
In accordance to arguments made by scholars on Maslows hierarchical needs
theory, a person may be trying to satisfy a number of needs at any one time, and not
391
everyone will seek satisfaction of the needs in the order suggested (Porter et al.,
2006). It is believed that differences in individual backgrounds, culture, and other
factors will dictate which needs to be fulfilled first and which needs are not. This is
reflected by several statements made in the focus group interviews in the qualitative
study, where several academics in the operational level argued that they were satisfied
with several higher rank needs but not satisfied with lower needs according to
Maslows hierarchy. Also gender differences were apparent with females desiring
better social relationships more than males.
Next, the current study in referring to Herzbergs Hygiene-Motivator Theory,
draws attention to several key antecedents of job satisfaction among academics in
Malaysian public higher education institutions. Without any intention of exploring
discrepancies between the two categories of hygiene and motivator antecedents as
proposed by Herzberg, the current study found the abilities of several antecedents of
job satisfaction to work as indispensable contributors towards the state of happiness
among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. This includes the
newly incorporated variables found in the current study, Government and Universities
Policies and Support (GUPS) and work-life balance, which is suggested to be
included and refined in the future research among higher education academics, apart
from nine organisational antecedents suggested by Spector (1997), which are pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-
workers, nature of work, and communication.
Then, Work Adjustment theory was argued to be a pertinent indicator for
academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions as they act, react, and
come to terms with their work environment (which is their universities), thus
adjusting to the particular work environment (Stemple, 2004). In the current studyin
regards to Work Adjustment theory- an academic is assumed to be satisfied with
his/her job, if he/she corresponds positively with the universitys working
environment, or vice verse. This is evidenced by the current studys findings on age,
where senior academics have a higher job satisfaction level than the juniors. Taking
pay satisfaction as one of the evidences, several key-persons who were the senior
academics, were found to correspond positively with the university environment
which in turn has made them satisfied with their pay. Also, in accordance to Work
Adjustment theory, key-person interviews demonstrated positive emotions in regards
to the work environment and how they have adapted to it over time.
392
Finally, the current study also took into account the proposition in Equity
theory that academics tend to compare their own outcomes measured against the
inputs they contribute toward the university, and at the same time evaluate in
comparison with the other academics in the same universities or from other
universities. The current studys findings also authenticated the notion that equality in
input-output term impacts an academics state of satisfaction where an academic
experiences satisfaction when he is rewarded for work he did compared to others.
Furthermore, the judgement of equality among the academics in the current study
lingered around the issue of different gender, groups of age, tenure in the university,
and between those with and without management positions.
For example, there were many comments by senior academics that juniors
now have better working conditions and promotion opportunities than they had and
conversely from junior academics that their positions were not as favourable as senior
academics.
Another example is a comment made by a tutor pertaining to supervision. He
argued that the management people in his faculty should delegate any works to
everybody fairly. He added that the current practice is not right where his dean and
head of department simply direct male academics to do everything rather than
involving female academics too and simply delegate academic tasks among juniors
and tutors and not among seniors.
These arguments made by the respondents in the qualitative study were
basically related to the notion in equity theory, where the dissatisfaction is the result
of a person who found dissimilarity of what he/she obtained compared to others. On
the other hand though, satisfaction will be the result if a person perceives equity in
comparison with others.
In regards to the literature of the antecedents of job satisfaction, job
satisfaction, and intention to leave, the current study has contributed in filling several
gaps in the body of knowledge. Among other things, first, a lot of key issues been
spoken out and discussed extensively by the academics in the qualitative study were
based on each antecedent of job satisfaction (refer to Table 9.2). The issues are of
important in the light of extending the past studies findings of what specifically the
academics in higher education institutions feel about their job. In this sense, the
findings also contributed in showing the specific issues that necessitate attention from
393
the universities and policy makers. These issues can be found in Chapter 4, Chapter 5,
Chapter 6, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8.
Secondly, the current study highlights the current state of job satisfaction
among academics in Malaysia, particularly in the public higher education institutions.
Since there has been no similar attempt done in doing such a comprehensive
investigation on specific antecedents of job satisfaction, the current study could
provide value in guiding future studies in similar educational setting either in
Malaysia or in any other countries. This is because past studies among university
academics in Malaysia focus either on one single variable of overall job satisfaction
or on several antecedents of job satisfaction, while the current study incorporated
eleven antecedents or factors of satisfaction and explored their relationships with
overall job satisfaction and intention to leave the organisation as the consequence
variable.
Thirdly, there is no other study in Malaysia has initiated such a comprehensive
analysis on the mediation role of job satisfaction. The current studys findings of
mediation analysis provides new insights into implementing job satisfaction as a
mediator variable between the antecedents of job satisfaction and the consequence
variable of job satisfaction which is intention to leave. Furthermore, the findings of
the mediation analysis highlighted the role of job satisfaction in mediating the
relationship between the antecedents of job satisfaction and intention to leave among
academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions. In this sense, it is worth
mentioning that overall job satisfaction had the potential to alleviate the impact of
contingent rewards and operating conditions on intention to leave, whereas it had
some potential to do so with the impact of other variables on intention to leave. In
regards to the particular mediation findings, as suggested by Villanueva and
Djurkovic (2009), these are essential in guiding the future research to highlight the
role of job satisfaction between any other correlated attitudinal and behavioural
variables among academics in higher education institutions in Malaysia.
Fourthly, in the attempt of investigating the moderating role of demographic
variables in the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,
the current study has highlighted several vital contributions to the literature of job
satisfaction among academics in higher education. It was found that only gender
moderates the relationship between overall job satisfaction with intention to leave,
394
while age, tenure, and management position were not the moderators for the
aforementioned relationship.
9.5.2 Implications for Methodology
As discussed in Chapter 2 and previous finding chapters, many prior studies

on the job satisfaction particularly among academics in higher education have used
quantitative methodologies (see Akpofure, 2006; Bilimoria et al., 2006; Ksk, 2003;
Noordin and Jusoff, 2009; Okpara et al., 2005; Oshagbemi, 1997). This study
demonstrates the advantages in using mixed methods as a research strategy for human
resource management and higher educational research, particularly a sequential mixed
design.
First, different methods enabled the researcher to find answers for different
objective in the current study. Second, as argued by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009),
mixed designs help the researcher to answer exploratory and confirmatory questions
chronologically in a pre-specified order. This is related to the investigation of the
association between the antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction and
intention to leave as the consequence variable through the execution of the qualitative
and quantitative studies.
Third, the advantage is that it is less complicated to be conducted by a solo
investigator because it is easier to keep the strands of quantitative and qualitative data
collection separate, and the studies typically unfold in a slower, more predictable
manner as asserted by Jang (2008) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009). Fourth, apart
from these, mixed methods designs also enable triangulation to take place (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009).
Consequently, the current study has made a contribution by executing the
mixed methods approach. This study implemented a sequential manner of collecting
mixed methods data, which started with the first stage, a qualitative methods study
and followed by the second stage of the study, a quantitative methods study. The
quantitative study also contributes as it involved such a large scale of respondents
which comprised of 1078 respondents. Compared to past research, the number of
survey respondents in the current study is assumed to be remarkable.
Another contribution of this research to the job satisfaction literature is the
variation of findings based on the selected demographic backgrounds of age, gender,
395
tenure, and management position among academics in public higher education
institutions. This study found several key findings in regards to the differences of the
level of satisfaction with the antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction,
and intention to leave based on different categories of selected demographic
backgrounds. This is vital since no study has initiated a comprehensive multi-methods
research on the association between demographic variables with job satisfaction and
intention to leave among academics particularly in Malaysian public higher
educational setting.
Furthermore, it is hard to find any similar attempt of investigating the
moderating role of demographic backgrounds -in the current study they were age,
gender, tenure, and management position- in the literature. Hence, the related findings
from the current study contribute to the gap of literature in the realm of the
demographic backgrounds and its influence on human resources attitudinal and
behavioural research.
9.5.3 Implications for the University and Policy Makers
This study has provided findings related to the relationships between the
antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job satisfaction, and intention to leave among
academics in public higher education institutions in Malaysia. In light of the findings
in the qualitative study, quantitative study, and information obtained from the
literature, according to Deery (2008) it is worth considering that at the organisational
level, there are a number of actions that can be adopted by the university management
to increase and maintain the satisfaction and in the same time minimise the level of
turnover among academic staff. The following implications for the university and
policy makers have been identified.
University managers, as far as is reasonably possible, need to give academics
sufficient control over the way in which they perform their duties (Villanueva &
Djurkovic, 2009), which may require that particular attention be paid to job design
approaches, such as skill utilization (Mohd Noor, 2004). Furthermore, university
managers should attempt to ensure that their employees do not feel isolated or
undervalued, and that they have the opportunity to attain an appropriate success in
their career (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009), as compared to any other academics in
the same university or from other universities.
396
From a managerial perspective, encouraging a high level of job satisfaction
is an essential part of retaining academic staff (Mohd Noor, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1997a;
Toker, 2011). As a means to alleviate turnover intentions, university managers may
improve aspects of the academics jobs. The extent to which employees feel that their
job is pleasant and enjoyable is important, and for this, management must attempt to
create a working environment that is conducive to job satisfaction (Villanueva &
Djurkovic, 2009). For instance, Noordin and Jusof (2009) argue that it can be very
difficult for university management to communicate with the majority of their
academic staff. Conversations regarding an academic staffs work environment can
fall to the wayside, and in some instances, never take place (Noordin & Jusof, 2009).
Hence, organisational climate surveys that occur on a scheduled basis (e.g., annually,
biannually, etc.) can be a more efficient way for the management to gather important
information (Mohd Noor, 2004; Noordin & Jusof, 2009).
Another example is, as a reference to the concept of satisfaction in Herzbergs
Hygiene-Motivator theory, university management may consider critical changes as a
means of an elucidation such as job enrichment. Job enrichment provides more
challenges with a greater sense of achievement and it ensures that interesting jobs are
created (Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). In the common perspectives of university
academics, this study found that good relationships with co-workers and superiors are
also essential to academics. Hence, as Villanueva and Djurkovic (2009) argue
university managers should look to facilitate the development of a harmonious and
supportive culture at the university. In particular this can be done by focussing on
improving the operating conditions of academics. Evidenced by the findings in the
current study, the university should at their best set up a good quality and sufficient
quantity of facilities such as lecture halls, teaching aids, internet connection,
photocopy machines, and so on. Furthermore, comfortable working conditions, and
optimum work responsibilities also should be carefully administered by the university
in order to sustain satisfaction among academics.
In regards to the satisfaction with work-life balance, the implication of this
study is that the boundaries between work and home are fluid. Academics especially
females continually argued that they found this separation difficult to make with work
encroaching on family time especially at weekends. This in particular led to poorer
job satisfaction for women. OBrien and Hyden (2008) suggest that flexibility in work
practice is becoming an integral part of employment, particularly in public sector
397
organisations, which are in effect, leading the way on this issue of work-life balance.
On top of that, academic staff also felt that they were forced to give more attention
towards their work, and had limited time spent for their own life and family.
According to Deery (2008) it is worth to ponder that at the organisational
level, there are a number of actions that can be adopted by the university management
to increase and maintain the satisfaction towards work-life balance practice and
policies and in the same time minimise the level of turnover among academic staff.
The strategies to assist in balancing work and family life which offered by Deery
(2008) include:
a. providing flexible working hours such as roistered days off and family
friendly starting and finishing times;
b. allowing flexible work arrangements such as job sharing and working at
home;
c. providing training opportunities during work time;
d. providing adequate resources for staff so that they can undertake their jobs
properly;
e. determining correct staffing levels so that staff are not overloaded;
f. allowing adequate breaks during the working day;
g. having provision for various types of leave such as carers leave and time-
out sabbatical types of leave;
h. rewarding staff for completing their tasks, not merely for presenteeism;
i. staff functions that involve families;
j. providing, if possible, health and well-being opportunities such as access to
gymnasiums or at least time to exercise; and
k. encouraging sound management practices.
This study could also serve as a platform for any Malaysian university
management and higher education policy makers to address the issue of intention to
leave and furthermore the turnover of academics.
9.5.4 Limitation of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research
Even though the current study has made a significant contributions and
implications to theory, knowledge, methodology, and practice in regards to job
398
satisfaction among academics in higher education institutions in Malaysia, several
limitations exist in the present study which warrants review.
This study was done on the job satisfaction of academics in three participating
public higher education institutions in Malaysia. Discussion of variables related in this
study such as demographic backgrounds, antecedents of job satisfaction, overall job
satisfaction, and intention to leave is confined to the respondents feedback on the
study. Thus, in regards to generalizability of the results, all the findings from the
current study were confined only to academics in the participating universities and
cannot be generalised to academics in any other public universities in Malaysia.
Further studies in the similar framework should be conducted to determine the
antecedents of job satisfaction, overall level of job satisfaction and intention to leave
among academics in all 20 public universities in Malaysia. Additionally, it is
recommended for the future studies to extend the same conceptual framework of the
current study into the private sector of higher education in Malaysia which then could
compare differences of job satisfaction, between private and public universities
academic staff, or in a broader setting, between local Malaysian university academics
and other regional countries.
Next, the nature of work was found to be the most influential organisational
antecedents of job satisfaction towards academics overall job satisfaction which
support findings of past studies (see Mohd Noor, 2004; Newby, 1999; Okpara, 2006;
Oshagbemi, 1997; Spector, 1997). Hence, the government and the university should
maintain the effective effort on setting up a conducive and supportive working
environment. This is especially in the realm of the issues spoken out through the
qualitative study, which among those are the job itself, students factor, and the
positive nature of teaching and doing research.
Although the relationships were moderate, the current study has also
successfully shown the relationships between GUPS and work-life balance with
overall job satisfaction among academics. In regards to GUPS, as elaborated in the
previous chapters, the demands of economic globalisation, escalating competition and
reduced government funding have affected higher education sector and have led to
many universities including in Malaysia adopting market-driven principles in relation
to their workplace practices and policies. For academic staff, this has meant elevated
workloads, higher expectations concerning research, increased administrative tasks,
and so on. These, which are policy-related issues, would in turn affect their
399
occupational attitudes such as job satisfaction, commitment and intention to leave and
even worst could lead to actual turnover.
It is worth future studies determining any other important antecedents that
may have a significant influence on academics job satisfaction particularly among
academics in the public higher education institutions. On top of that, it is anticipated
that through the outcome of the current study, more future research focusing on
investigating the condition of GUPS and satisfaction with work-life balance of
academics and their association with any other critical attitudes and behaviour could
be initiated.
Then, in regards to the consequences of job satisfaction, it is recommended for
future studies to associate job satisfaction among academics in Malaysian public
higher education institutions with critical and imperative variables other than intention
to leave. This could include occupational stress, organisational commitment,
organisational citizenship behaviour, perceived organisational support, absenteeism,
and turnover.
Consequently, from the findings in the mediation analysis, it is noteworthy for
future studies to look at the role of job satisfaction as a mediator between the
relationship of other attitudinal and behavioural variables. Also, the attempt of
incorporating demographic variables in the current study as moderators should be
extended in further studies to find any other significant yet important moderating roles
between any investigated variables.
Finally, a similar study should be conducted using a different mixed-methods
research design other than interviews and surveys which has been implemented in the
current study. For example, future studies can incorporate case study, together with
interviews and/or survey, in order to use additional enriched information on the level
of job satisfaction together with its antecedents and consequences variables among
academics of Malaysian public higher education institutions.
9.6 Conclusion
Chapter 9 is the final chapter of this thesis. This study enriches the literature on the
antecedents, the state of, and consequence of job satisfaction among academics in
Malaysian public higher education institutions. This study demonstrates the
associations between eleven pertinent antecedents of satisfaction with the overall job
400
satisfaction of Malaysian public higher education academics as depicted in the
conceptual framework in Figure 9.2. The factors of Government and Universities
Policies and Support and Work-Life Balance are two other antecedents - which
seldom are perceived as important factors to weigh up job satisfaction in the
literature- have been incorporated as components of the overall framework of
academics job satisfaction. Finally, the impacts and interrelationship between all the
antecedents of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction are also found with
intention to leave among academics.
As asserted in the thesis, several key findings in the current study vitally
contribute to the body of knowledge in regards to job satisfaction studies.
Implications, limitation and recommendations for methodology, for the university and
policy makers, and future research convey clearly the current state of job satisfaction
particularly among academics in Malaysian public higher education institutions,
which in turn, assist in the provision of a happy workplace for higher education
academics.
401
APPENDIX A: Ethics Approval letters
Memorandum
ACADEMIC SERVICES
Faculty of Law and Management
La Trobe University
Victoria 3086 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: 9479 1603 Fax: 9479 1484
To: Mr Khairunneezam Mohd Noor

From: Mrinali Clarke, Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee
CC: Dr Pauline Stanton
Date: 27th September 2007
Subject: Ethics Approval No. 52/07R
Title: Job satisfaction in Malaysian Higher Education
Dear Neezam
The Faculty Human Ethics Committee (FHEC) has assessed your application as complying with the National Health and
Medical Research Councils National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with University
guidelines on Ethics Approval for Research with Human Subjects.
The Committee has granted approval for the period 1 st October 2007 to 1st November 2007.
Please note that the FHEC is a sub-committee of the Universitys Human Ethics Committee (UHEC). The decision to approve
your project will need to be ratified by the UHEC at its next meeting. Consequently, approval for your project may be
withdrawn or conditions of approval altered. However, your project may commence prior to ratification. You will be notified
if the approval status is altered.
The following special conditions apply to your project:
Q.8 b) Please provide expected age range of participants, not just working adults;
Q.13 a, b, c) need to provide a response to the committee;
Data needs to be preserved for 5 years in supervisors office, and then destroyed.
The following standard conditions apply to your project:
Complaints. If any complaints are received or ethical issues arise during the course of the project, researchers should advise
the Secretary of the FHEC by mail or email: [email protected].
Limit of Approval. Approval is limited strictly to the research proposal as submitted in your application, while taking into
account the conditions and approval dates advised by the FHEC.
Variation to Project. As a consequence of the previous condition, any subsequent variations or modifications you may wish
to make to your project must be notified formally to the FHEC. This should be done using Application for Approval of
Modification to Research Project Form, which is available from the FHEC Secretary. If the FHEC considers that the proposed
changes are significant, you may be required to submit a new Application Form.
Progress Reports. You are required to submit a Progress Report annually (if your project continues for more than 12 months)
and/or at the conclusion of your project. The completed form should be returned to the Secretary of the FHEC. Failure to
submit a Progress Report will mean that approval for this project will lapse. An audit may be conducted by the FHEC at any
time. Your Progress Report is due on 1st December 2007.
If you have any queries, or require any further clarification, please contact me at the Faculty of Law and Management on 9479
1603, or by e-mail: [email protected]
Yours sincerely
Mrinali Clarke
Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee
402
RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
To: Dr Pauline Stanton, Graduate School of Management, FL&M

Mr Khairunneezam Mohd Noor, Graduate School of Management, FL&M
From: Secretary, La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee
Subject: Review of Human Ethics Committee Application No. 08-127
Title: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among academics in Malaysian higher
education
Date: 19 September 2008
Thank you for submitting your application for ethics approval to the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee
(UHEC) for the project referred to above.
A sub-committee of the UHEC reviewed your application in accordance with the National Health and Medical
Research Councils National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with University Human
Research Ethics Guidelines. Your project has been granted provisional ethics approval.
Final approval to commence the project will follow when the UHEC receives the following information
and/or revised documentation:
1) You have provided inconsistent responses in regard to confidentiality of the interview participants.
Section 12 states that interviewees will be asked if they agree for their identity to be made known;
Section 20 (b) states that confidentiality will be maintained; Section 21 (a) states that identity may be
made known if the interviewee agrees. You need to clarify this matter.
2) The UHEC has noted that one university gives consent to research being conducted until 31 March
2009 and another until 31 January 2009. You should ensure that the start date and end date of your
proposed research will comply with the approvals granted by each of the universities. If you plan to
extend the research beyond the 31 January 2009, then it is recommended that you seek approval
from that university to extend the permission beyond that date. Please comment.
3) It is unclear if the consent given by the universities includes their consent for you to conduct both the
surveys and the interviews (or just the surveys). You should clarify this by including it in the ethics
application form and amending the original letter that was sent to those universities.
4) Please clarify if the translated copies of each of the Participant Information Sheets and Consent
Forms are certified copies? If not it would be preferable for certified copies to be provided, although
the UHEC does not want to impose a financial burden on to a student. Is certification available
through La Trobes International Student Services?
5) Section 21 (c) Given that the surveys are anonymous how will you be able to provide individual
results to the survey respondents? You should clarify this and, if necessary, amend the Participant
Information Sheets.
1
6) Section 4.8.16 of the National Statement requires that a local, readily accessible contact should be
available to participants to receive...complaints. You are therefore advised to try to provide a local
contact and include their contact details on the Participant Information Sheets.
Please do not resubmit a revised ethics application but respond to the above points in a memorandum format
and provide any amended documents as requested. The applicant is required to notify other Human Research
Ethics Committee, if applicable, of any modifications to the project. If you have any queries on the matters
mentioned above or require any further clarification please contact me through the Research and Graduate Studies
Department by phone on 9479 1443, or by e-mail at [email protected]
Barbara Doherty
UHEC Secretary and Administrative Officer (Research Ethics)
La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee
2
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
KEY PERSON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Based on the present socio-economic and political situation and development in

Malaysia, it is assumed that reforms like increasing government financial support to
cultivate research and development (R&D) activities in universities, development of
more active collaborations between the government, industry and universities, the
added numbers of students quota in each university, and government and private
sectors efforts on building the world class higher education, have significant and
substantial impacts toward universities and its academic staff.
From your perspective are these developments having any impacts on your job
satisfaction and on your academic staffs job satisfaction? If Yes, why? If No,
why?
2. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job satisfaction
and your academic staffs job satisfaction (for example compensation, fringe
benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself, organisational law and
regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)? Why?
3. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job
dissatisfaction and your academic staffs job dissatisfaction (for example
compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job itself,
organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health policy)?
Why?
4. What is it the job that you and your academic staff do?
5. From your point of view, what are the key components of the job that really make
you and your academic staff satisfied?
6. From your point of view, what are the key components of the job that make you and
your academic staff not satisfied?
7. Do you think that in your role as a leader has any impact on your academic staffs
job satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?
8. Do you think that your relationship with colleagues has any impacts on your job
satisfaction? Why?
9. Do you think personal characteristics like age, gender, race, marital status,
academic qualification, job tenure and job rank have any impacts on job
satisfaction? If Yes, why and if No, why?
10. In your perspective do work-life balance being a significant factor that impacting
your job satisfaction and your academic staffs job satisfaction (for example, time
spend for family, joining social activities, doing your hobbies and so on and time to
fulfil your job tasks and responsibilities at workplace)?
If yes, can you explain more? If no, can you explain more?
405
TRANSLATION OF KEY PERSON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
IN MALAY LANGUAGE
1. Berdasarkan kepada situasi terkini di Malaysia terdapat perkembangan sosio-

ekonomi dan politik di dalam sektor pengajian tinggi, misalnya usaha kerajaan
meningkatkan dana suntikan bagi menggalakkan aktiviti penyelidikan dan
pembangunan (R&D) di universiti, mewujudkan hubungan kolektif yang lebih aktif di
antara kerajaan, industri dan universiti, pertambahan kuota pelajar di universiti dan
usaha kerajaan dan sektor swasta dalam mewujudkan pengajian tinggi bertaraf
dunia. Perkembangan ini dianggap memberi impak yang besar kepada universiti
dan para pensyarahnya.
Persoalannya adakah perkembangan ini memberi kesan terhadap kepuasan
kerja anda? Jika Ya, kenapa? Jika Tidak, kenapa?
2. Pada pandangan anda, apakah faktor-faktor di dalam organisasi anda yang

menyumbang kepada kepuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda (sebagai
contoh gaji yang diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti
dan pembuatan keputusan, pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang
organisasi dan polisi keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor
tersebut mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda?

menyumbang kepada ketidakpuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda (sebagai
contoh gaji yang diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti
dan pembuatan keputusan, Pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang
organisasi dan polisi Keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor
tersebut mempengaruhi ketidakpuasan kerja anda dan staf akademik anda?
4. Apakah sebenarnya kerja yang dilaksanakan di dalam pekerjaan anda dan staf
akademik anda?
5. Apakah komponen dalam kerja yang membuatkan anda dan staf akademik anda
berasa puas?
6. Apakah pula komponen dalam kerja yang dilaksanakan menyumbang kepada

ketidakpuasan anda dan staf akademik anda?
7. Pada pendapat anda, adakah peranan anda sebagai penyelia atau pihak
pengurusan atasan secara umumnya menjadi faktor yang mempengaruhi
kepuasan kerja staf akademik anda? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak, kenapa?
8. Pada pendapat anda, adakah hubungan dengan rakan-rakan sekerja

mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda? Kenapa?
9. Adakah anda rasa karektor peribadi seperti umur, jantina, bangsa, kelayakan
akademik, jumlah tahun telah bekerja dan menyandang jawatan di organisasi
mempunyai sebarang kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika
Tidak, kenapa?
10. Adakah anda fikir bahawa menyeimbangkan urusan kehidupan seharian (seperti
masa untuk bersama keluarga, bersukan, menyertai aktiviti sosial atau membuat
hobi) dan urusan pekerjaan mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda dan staf
akademik anda? Jika Ya, huraikan kenapa? Jika Tidak, huraikan kenapa?
406
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Based on the current situation in Malaysia there have been many economic and
political developments in the university sector over the past few years, such as
increasing government financial support to cultivate research and development
(R&D) activities in universities, development of more active collaborations between
the government, industry and universities, the added numbers of students quota in
each university, and government and private sectors efforts on building the world
class higher education. All these development is assumed to have significant and
substantial impacts toward universities and its academic staffs.
From your perspective are these developments having any impacts on your job
satisfaction? If Yes, why? If No, why?
2. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job satisfaction
(for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision making, the job
itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety and health
policy)? Why?
3. In your opinion, what factors in your organisation that impact your job
dissatisfaction (for example compensation, fringe benefits, authority and decision
making, the job itself, organisational law and regulations, and organisational safety
and health policy)? Why?
4. What are the key components of the job you do that really make you satisfied?
5. What are the key components of the job you do that make you not satisfied?
6. Do you think that immediate supervisor is generally a substantial factor on job

7. Do you think that your relationship with colleagues has any impacts on your job
satisfaction? Why?
8. Do you think personal characteristics like age, gender, race, marital status,
academic qualification, job tenure and job rank have any impacts on job
9. In your perspective do work-life balance being a significant factor that impacting

your job satisfaction (for example, time spend for family, joining social activities,
doing your hobbies and so on and time to fulfil your job tasks and responsibilities at
workplace)?
If yes, can you explain more? If no, can you explain more?
407
TRANSLATION OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
IN MALAY LANGUAGE
1. Berdasarkan kepada situasi terkini di Malaysia terdapat perkembangan sosio-

ekonomi dan politik di dalam sektor pengajian tinggi, misalnya usaha kerajaan
meningkatkan dana suntikan bagi menggalakkan aktiviti penyelidikan dan
pembangunan (R&D) di universiti, mewujudkan hubungan kolektif yang lebih aktif di
antara kerajaan, industri dan universiti, pertambahan kuota pelajar di universiti dan
usaha kerajaan dan sektor swasta dalam mewujudkan pengajian tinggi bertaraf
dunia. Perkembangan ini dianggap memberi impak yang besar kepada universiti
dan para pensyarahnya.
Persoalannya adakah perkembangan ini memberi kesan terhadap kepuasan
kerja anda? Jika Ya, kenapa? Jika Tidak, kenapa?

menyumbang kepada kepuasan kerja anda (sebagai contoh gaji yang diperoleh,
kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan keputusan,
pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan polisi
keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut
mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda?

menyumbang kepada ketidakpuasan kerja anda (sebagai contoh gaji yang
diperoleh, kemudahan dan ganjaran sampingan, ruang autoriti dan pembuatan
keputusan, Pekerjaan itu sendiri, peraturan dan undang-undang organisasi dan
polisi Keselamatan dan kesihatan)? Kenapa anda fikir faktor-faktor tersebut
mempengaruhi ketidakpuasan kerja anda?
4. Apakah komponen dalam kerja yang yang anda laksanakan yang membuatkan
anda rasa puas?
5. Apakah pula komponen dalam kerja yang dilaksanakan menyumbang kepada

ketidakpuasan anda?
6. Pada pendapat anda, adakah penyelia atau pihak pengurusan atasan secara
umumnya menjadi faktor kepada kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika Tidak,
kenapa?
7. Pada pendapat anda, adakah hubungan dengan rakan-rakan sekerja

mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda? Kenapa?
8. Adakah anda rasa karektor peribadi seperti umur, jantina, bangsa, kelayakan
akademik, jumlah tahun bekerja dan menyandang jawatan di organisasi
mempunyai sebarang kesan terhadap kepuasan kerja? Jika Ya, kenapa dan jika
Tidak, kenapa?
9. Adakah anda fikir bahawa menyeimbangkan urusan kehidupan seharian (seperti

masa untuk bersama keluarga, bersukan, menyertai aktiviti sosial atau membuat
hobi) dan urusan pekerjaan mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja anda?
Jika Ya, huraikan kenapa? Jika Tidak, huraikan kenapa?
408
Appendix C: List of Publications Extracted From the Thesis
Mohd Noor, K. 2007, An Overture Of Job Satisfaction, in Khalid, M.Y., Ahmad, Y,

Khairunneezam, M.N. and Zainudin, Z, 2007, Muzakarah Dakwah dan
Pengurusan, Nilai: Islamic Science University of Malaysia.
Mohd Noor, K. 2007, Haluan Dan Cabaran IPT Di Era Pasca Kemerdekaan, in Alias,
M. Hashim, M.S., Hamzah, A., Ahmad, S.B.S and Sipon, S. 2007, Koleksi
Rencana Merdeka, Nilai: Islamic Science University of Malaysia.
Mohd Noor, K., Stanton, P. and Young, S. 2009, Perceptions Of Malaysian Higher
Education Academics Concerning Their Job Satisfaction And Organizational
Commitment, Proceedings Of The 14th Asia Pacific Management Conference,
Surabaya: University Airlangga.
Mohd Noor, K., Stanton, P. and Young, S. 2009, Work-Life Balance and Job
Satisfaction: A Study among Academics in Malaysian Higher Education
Institutions, Proceedings Of The 14th Asia Pacific Management Conference,
Surabaya: University Airlangga.
Mohd Noor, K. 2010, Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Intention to Leave
Among Academics in Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions,
Proceedings of the International Economic and Business Management Conference
2010, Pahang, Malaysia: UNITEN and Assumption University of Thailand.
Mohd Noor, K. 2010, Relationship Do Academics Satisfied With Their Job? A Study in
Malaysian Public Higher Educational Institutions, Proceedings of the
International Economic and Business Management Conference 2010, Pahang,
Malaysia: UNITEN and Assumption University of Thailand.
Mohd Noor, K. 2011, Work-Life Balance and Intention to Leave among Academics in
Malaysian Public Higher Education Institutions, International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 2, 11, pp.240-248.
Mohd Noor, K. and Amat, M.I. 2012, Keseimbangan Kerja-Kehidupan dan Kepuasan
Kerja Ahli Akademik di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, in Ghani, Z.A.,
Ramly, R.M., Jailani, M.R.M., and Khalid, M.Y. 2012, Kepimpinan Dan
Pengurusan: Dakwah, Media Dan Ilmu, Nilai: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.
Mohd Noor, K., Junoh, A.M., Rahman, S.H.A., Othman, S. and Kasmani, M.F. 2012,
Communication Satisfaction among Academics in Malaysian Ivory Towers, in
Mohd Noor, K., Marjuni, K.N., Ahmad, Z.A., Kasmani, M.F., Zumrah, A.R.,
Ghani, Z.A. and Rahman, S.H.A., 2012, Proceeding of the Regional Seminar on
Islamic Higher Education Institutions 2012 (SeIPTI2012), Nilai: Faculty of
Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.
409
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdul Rahman, S.N. 2001, 'The relationship between job satisfaction and work
performance: A study at Wodard Textiles Mills Sdn. Bhd. Penang', Master thesis,
Technology University of Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Abdulsalam, D. and Mawoli, M.A. 2012, Motivation and Job Performance of Academic
Staff of State Universities in Nigeria: The Case of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida
University, Lapai, Niger State, International Journal of Business and
Management; 7, 14, pp. 142-148.
Abdullah, M. 1992, 'Factors relating to job satisfaction of secondary school principals',
Master thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor.
Abu Bakar, H. 1985, 'An Analysis of Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff of
Universities in Malaysia (Faculty Motivation, Morale)', Phd thesis, Ohio
University.
Adams, J.S. 1965, Inequity in social exchange, Advance in Experimental Social
Psychology, 62, pp. 335-343.
Adekola, B. 2012, The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction: A
Study of Employees at Nigerian Universities, International Journal of Human
Resource Studies, 2, 2, pp. 1-17.
Ahmad, R.H. 1998, 'Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: past, present
and future', Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 5, pp. 462-475.
Ahsan, N., Abdullah, Z. David, Y.G.F. & Alam, S.S. 2009, A Study of Job Stress on
Job Satisfaction among University Staff in Malaysia: Empirical Study, European
Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1, pp. 121-131.
Aihara, A. 2009, Paradoxes Of Higher Education Reforms: Implications On The
Malaysian Middle Class, IJAPS, 5, 1, pp. 81-113.
Akpofure, R-R, Ikhifa, O.G, Imide, O.I and Okoyoko, I.E. 2006, 'Job Satisfaction among
Educators in Colleges of Education in Southern Nigeria', Journal of Applied
Sciences, 6, 5, pp. 1094-1098.
Aktaruzzaman, M., Clement, C.K. And Hasan, M.F. 2011, Job Satisfaction Among
Teachers Of Technical Training Centers (T.T.Cs.) In Bangladesh, Academic
Research International 1, 2, pp. 375-382.
Alam, M. M. and Mohammad, J. F. 2010, Level of Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave
among Malaysian Nurses, Business Intelligent Journal, 3, pp. 123-137.
Ali, A. 2003, 'Engaging with economic development through the commercialisation of
research: The Malaysian Experience', paper presented to ACU General
Conference, Queen's University Belfast, UK, <http://www.acu.ac.uk/
aboutacu/belfast/talkpdf/spkr16-1063032682.pdf>. (5 March 2008).
Ali, S.M., Shaharudin, M.R. and Anuar, A. 2012, The Association between Job Positions,
Work Experience and Career Satisfaction: The Case of Malaysians Academic
Staff Asian Social Science, 8, 10, pp. 35-44.
Anderson, V. 2004, Research Methods in Human Resource Management, London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Arif, M.I. , Iqbal, M.Z., Islam, Z. U. and Hussain, M. 2012, HRM Practices for
Sustainable workforce: Perceived Satisfaction level of University Teachers,
International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2, 4, pp. 211-220.
410
Arshad, A. 2007, 'Faedah berkongsi kepakaran universiti [transl. Benefits of sharing
universities expertises]', Utusan Malaysia, 20 June 2007.
Artz, B. 2010, 'Fringe benefits and job satisfaction', International Journal of Manpower,
31, 6, pp. 626-644.
Atif, A. Richards, D. And Bilgin, A. 2012, Estimating Non-Response Bias in a Web-
based Survey of Technology Acceptance: A Case Study of Unit Guide Information
Systems, Geelong, Proceeding of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information
Systems.
Badawi, A.A. 2007, The 2007 Budget Speech: Implementing the National Mission
Towards Achieving the National Vision, Prime Ministry Office, Malaysia.
Banerjee, D. and Perrucci, C.C. 2010, Job Satisfaction: Impact of Gender, Race, Worker
Qualifications, and Work Context, Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace,
20, pp. 3958.
Barnett, A.M., Marsh, H.W. and Craven, R.G. 2005, What type of school leadership
satisfies teachers? A mixed method approach to teachers' perceptions of
satisfaction, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF)
Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Australia, <http://0-
search.informit.com.au.alpha2. latrobe.edu.au/fullText; dn=200605280;res=
APAFT>. (5 May 2008).
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. 1986, 'The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations',
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Barrett, L. and Yates, P. 2002, 'Oncology/haematology nurses: a study of job satisfaction,
burnout, and intention to leave the specialty', Australian Health Review, 25, 3.
Bartram, T., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., Leggat, S.G. and Stanton P. 2012, Do Perceived
High Performance Work Systems Influence the Relationship between Emotional
Labour, Burnout and Intention to Leave? A Study of Australian Nurses. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 00(0), 000000.
Bartram, T., Stanton, P., Leggat, S., Casimir, G. and Fraser, B. 2007, Lost in translation:
exploring the link between HRM and performance in healthcare, Human
Resource Management Journal, 17, 1, pp. 21-41.
Bashir, M., Jianqiao, L., Jun, Z., Ghazanfar, F. and Khan, M.M. 2011, The Role of
Demographic Factors in the Relationship between High Performance Work
System and Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Approach, International
Journal of Business and Social Science , 2, 18, pp. 207-218.
Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. 1984, 'A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of
Organisational Commitment', Academy of Management Journal, 27, 1, pp. 95-
112.
Beaujean, A.A. 2008, 'Mediation, Moderation, and the Study of Individual Differences',
in Osborne, J.W. (ed), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Thousand Oak:
Sage Publications, pp. 422-442.
Beauregard, T.A. and Henry, L.C. 2009, 'Making the link between work-life balance
practices and organizational performance', Human Resource Management Review,
19, pp. 9-22.
411
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. 1976, 'Relationship of Stress to Individually and
Organizationally Valued States: Higher Order Needs as a Moderator', Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 1, pp. 41-47.
Bender, K.A., Donohue, S.M. and Heywood, J.S. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction of the Highly
Educated: The Role of Gender, Academic Tenure, and Comparison Income',
Oxford Economic Papers, 57, pp. 479-496.
Bergman, MM (ed) 2008, Advances in Mixed Methods Research, Los Angeles, SAGE
Publications.
Biggs, D. and Swailes, S. 2006, 'Relations, commitment and satisfaction in agency
workers and permanent workers', Employee Relations, 28, 2, pp. 130-143.
Bilimoria, D., Perry, S.R., Liang, X., Stoller, E.P., Higgins, P. and Taylor, C. 2006, 'How
Do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job Satisfaction? The Roles of
Perceived Institutional Leadership and Mentoring and their Mediating Processes',
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 355-365.
Bittner, N.P and OConnor, M. 2011, Focus on Retention: Identifying Barriers to Nurse
Faculty Satisfaction, Nursing Education Perspectives, 33, 4, pp. 251-254.
Boscainos, P.J., Sapkas, G., Stilianessi, E., Prouskas, K. and Papadakis, S.A. 2003,
'Greek Versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires',
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 411, pp. 40-53.
Bourque, L.B. and Fielder, E.P. 2003, How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail
Surveys, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Briggs, S. 2005, 'Changing roles and competencies of academics', Active Learning in
Higher Education, 6, 3, pp. 256-268.
Broers, C.M. 2005, 'Career and Family: The Role of Social Support', Griffith University.
Brown, D. 2008, Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction in Higher Education, The Key
to Greater Productivity and Retention of a Qualified Workforce, Saarbrucken:
VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. 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, pp. 289-304.
Bryman, A. (ed) 2006, Mixed Methods, Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Burke, R. J., Burgess, Z. and Oberrlaid, F. 2004, 'Do Male Psychologists Benefit from
Organisational Values Supporting Work-Personal Life Balance?' Equal
Opportunities International, 23, 1/2, pp. 97-107.
Butt, G. and Lance, A. 2005, Secondary teacher Workload and Job Satisfaction, Do
Successful Strategies for Change Exist? Educational Management and
Administration and Leadership, Vol 33 (4), pp. 401-422.
Carlier, S.I., Llorente, C.L. and Grau Grau, M. 2012, Comparing work-life balance in
Spanish and Latin-American countries, European Journal of Training and
Development, 36, 2, pp. 286-307.
Callister, R.R. 2006, 'The Impact of Gender and Department Climate on Job Satisfaction
and Intentions to Quit for Faculty in Science and Engineering Fields ', Journal of
Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 367-375.
Capon, C. 2000, Understanding Organisational Context, Essex, Pearson Education
Limited.
412
Castiglia, B. 2006, 'The Impact of Changing Culture in Higher Education on the Person-
Organisation Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of College
Faculty', Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10, 2, pp. 23-44.
Castle, N. G. 2006. An instrument to measure job satisfaction of nursing home
administrators. BMC Medical Research Methodology, <http://www.
biomedcentral.com> (25 May 2007).
Chen, S-H., Yang, C-C., Shiau, J-Y. and Wang, H-H. 2006, 'The development of an
employee satisfaction model for higher education', The TQM Magazine, 18, 5, pp.
484-500.
Chng, H.K., Chong, W.K., and Nakesvari, M. 2010, The Satisfaction Level of Penang
Private Colleges Lecturers, International Journal of Trade, Economics and
Finance, 1, 2, pp.168-172.
Chua, C. 2004, 'Perception of Quality in Higher Education', paper presented to Quality in
a time of change: proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004,
Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.
Clark, A.E. 1998, 'Measures of Job Satisfaction: What Makes a Good Job? Evidence
from OECD Countries, ' paper presented to Labour Market and Social Policy,
Occasional Papers No.34, France.
Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. 2002, A Student's Guide to Methodology: Justifying
Enquiry, London: SAGE Publications.
Coakes, S.J., Steed, L. and Ong, C. 2010, SPSS Version 17.0 for Windows: Analysis
without Anguish, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons.
Cooper, R. 1973, 'How Job Motivate', in Weir, M.(ed), Job Satisfaction, Challenge and
Response in Modern Britain, Glasgow: William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd.
Cox, S. 2005, 'Global Management Education: A Perspective from the Dean of Lancaster
University Management School', Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 42, 1/2,
pp. 3-6.
Crossman, A. and Abou-Zaki, B. 2003, Job satisfaction and employee performance of
Lebanese banking staff. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 4, pp. 368-376.
Dator, J. 2004, 'Universities without Quality and Quality without Universities', paper
presented to Quality in a time of change: proceedings of the Australian
Universities Quality Forum 2004, Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.
DeCuir-Gunby, J.T. 2008, 'Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences', in JW
Osborne (ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Thousand Oak: Sage
Publications.
Deery, M. 2008, 'Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies',
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 7, pp. 792-
806.
Deery, M. And Jago, L. 2009, Talent Management, Work-Life Balance and retention
Strategies, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20.
7. Pp 792-806.
DeMato, D.S. 2001, 'Job Satisfaction Among Elementary School Counsellors in Virginia:
Thirteen Years Later', PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Dessler, G., Griffiths, J., Llyod-Walker, B. and Williams, A. 1999, Human Resource
Management, Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
413
Din, M.S. 2001, 'Impact of the economic crisis on higher education: the case of
University Utara, Malaysia', paper presented to Impact of the economic crisis on
higher education in East Asia: Country experiences, Paris.
Disney, M. 2004, 'Divided we stand - a new deal for education?; [Supplement Edition]',
Malaysian Business, Kuala Lumpur.
Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. 2006, 'Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK
university', Women in Management Review, 21, 3, pp. 241-259.
Donnelly, J.E. 2006, 'What matters to advisers: Exploring the current state of academic
adviser job satisfaction', PhD Thesis, University of Cincinnati.
Dundas, K. 1994, Managing human resources, Melbourne: Thomas Nelson.
Dundas, K. 2008, 'Work-Life Balance: There is no one-size-fits-all solution', in
O'Rourke, K (ed), Managing Matters, Graduate College of Management,
Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Summer (3), pp. 7-8.
Eberhardt, B.J., Pooyan, A. and Moser, S.B. 1995, 'Moderators of the Relationship
between Job Satisfaction and Nurses' Intention to Quit', The International Journal
of Organizational Analysis, 3, 4 (October), pp. 394-406.
Economic Planning Unit. 2006, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, Prime Minister's
Department of Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Economic Planning Unit, 2007, Chapter 5: Developing Malaysia into a Knowledge-
Based Economy, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, Prime Minister's Department
of Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Education watch; [Supplement Edition] 2005, Malaysian Business, Nov 16, 2005, p.10.
'Education without borders: International trade in education; [Supplement Edition]' 2005,
Malaysian Business, 16 November 2005.
Eikhof, D.R., Warhurst, C. and Haunschild, A. 2007, 'Introduction: What work? What
life? What balance? Critical reflections on the work-life balance debate ',
Employee Relations, 29, 4, pp. 325-33.
Einspruch, E.L. 1998, An Introductory Guide to SPSS for Windows, Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. 2005, 'The value of online surveys', Internet Research, 15, 2,
pp. 195-219.
Fairchild, S., Tobias, S., Corcoran, S., Djukic, M., Kovner, C. and Noguera, P. 2012,
White and Black Teachers Job Satisfaction: Does Relational Demography
Matter?, Urban Education, 47(1) 170197.
Falkenburg, K. and Schyns, B. 2007, 'Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and
withdrawal behaviours', Management Research News, 30, 10, pp. 708-23.
Feldman, D.C. and Arnold, H.J. 1983, Managing individual and group behavior in
organizations, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fink, A. 1995a, How to Analyze Survey Data, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Fink, A. 1995b, The Survey Book, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Fink A. 2003, How to Sample in Surveys, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Firdaus, A. 2006, 'Measuring service quality in higher education: HedPERF versus
SERVPERF', Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24, 1, pp. 31-47.
414
Forsyth, S. and Polzer-Debruyne, A. 2007, 'The organisational pay-offs for perceived
worklife balance support', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45, 1, pp.
113-123.
Fowler, G. 2005, 'An analysis of higher education staff attitudes in a dynamic
environment ', Tertiary Education and Management, 11, pp. 183-197.
Freebody, P. 2003, Qualitative research in education : interaction and practice, London:
SAGE.
Gabbidon, S.L. and Higgins, G.E. 2012, The Life of an Academic: Examining the
Correlates of Job Satisfaction Among Criminology/Criminal Justice Faculty,
Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, pp. 669681.
Gay, L.R. 1987, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 3rd
edition, Toronto: Merril Publishing Company.
Gay, L.R. and Diehl, P.L. 1992, Research Methods for Business and Management, New
York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Ghauth eyes world-class status, 2005, Malaysian Business, 16 November 2005, p.6.
Ghazi, S.R., Ali, R., Shahzada, G. and Israr, M. 2010, 'University Teachers Job
Satisfaction in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan', Asian Social
Science, 6, 1, pp. 188-192.
Goff, D.G. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction of Community College Academic Deans', Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of South Florida.
Goh, P.S-C. 2005, 'Perceptions of Learning Environments, Learning Approaches, and
Learning Outcomes: A Study of Private Higher Education Students in Malaysia
Twinning Programmes', University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Gomez, E.T. and Jomo, K.S. 1997, Malaysias Political Economy: Politics, Patronage
and Profits, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, M.W. and Messner, P.E. 1998, 'Principals and Job Satisfaction', International
Journal of Educational Management, 12, 5, pp. 196-202.
Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S. and Llanes, V.A. 2003, 'Branding universities in Asian Market',
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 2, pp. 108-.20.
Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M. and Shaw, J.D. 2003, 'The relation between work-family
balance and quality of life', Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, pp. 510-531.
Grisham, T. 2009, 'The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted
topics', International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 1, pp. 112-
130.
Gruneberg, M.M. 1976, 'Introduction', in Gruneberg, M.M. (ed.), Job Satisfaction- A
Reader, London: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., Afifi, W.A. 2007. Close encounters: communication in
relationships, Thousand Oak, California: SAGE Publication
Guest, D.E. 2002, 'Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance', Social Science
Information, 41, 255, pp. 255-279.
Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Williams, P. 2002, 'Online versus offline
research: implications for evaluating digital media', Aslib Proceedings, 54, 4, pp.
229-239.
Haar, J.M., Spell, C.S. and O'Driscoll, M.P. 2005, 'Exploring work-family backlash in a
public organisation', International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 7,
pp. 604-614.
415
Hagedorn, L.S. 2000, 'Conceptualizing Faculty Job Satisfaction: Components, Theories,
and Outcomes', in Hagedorn, L.S. (ed), What Contributes to Job Satisfaction
among Faculty and Staff, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hagen, R. 2002, 'Globalization, university transformation and economic regeneration: A
UK case study of public/private sector partnership ', International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 15, 3, pp. 204-218.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. 2010, Multivariate data
analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Haque, M., Karim A.N.M, Muqtadir, A. and Anam, S. Dimensions of Job Satisfaction of
Library Professionals: A Qualitative Exploration, International Journal of
Business and Social Research, 2, 5, pp. 46-61.
Hashim, J. 2012, Academic excellence as selection criteria among Malaysian
employers, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 2, 1, pp. 63-73.
Hassan, A. 2001, 'Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in Malaysia', paper
presented to Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in East Asia:
Country experiences, Paris.
Hassan, A. and Hashim, J. 2011, Role of organizational justice in determining work
outcomes of national and expatriate academic staff in Malaysia, International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 21, 1, pp. 82-93.
Hassan, G. 1994, 'Job satisfaction among University Putra Malaysia security guards',
Master thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor.
Help academia to grow and excel, 2006, [Supplement Edition]. Malaysian Business, 16
April 2006, p.4.
Heraty, N., Morley, M.J. and Cleveland, J.N. 2008, 'Complexities and challenges in the
work-family interface', Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 3, pp. 209-214.
Herzberg, F. 1971, Work and the Nature of Man, London: Staple Press.
Herzberg, F. 1976, 'One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?' in Gruneberg,
M.M. (ed), Job Satisfaction- A Reader, London: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Hill, H. 2000, 'Review of: Restructuring the Malaysian economy; Development and
human resources', Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 3, pp. 680-681.
Ho, C-C. 2006, 'A Study of the Relationships between Work Values, Job Involvement
and Organisational Commitment Among Taiwanese Nurses', PhD Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology.
Hosie, P.J. 2003, 'A study of the relationships between manager's job well-being, intrinsic
job satisfaction and performance', Phd Thesis, The University of Western
Australia.
Houston, D., Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. 2006, 'Academic staff workloads and job
satisfaction: expectations and values in academe', Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 28, 1, pp. 17-30.
Howard, W.G., Donofrio, H.H. and Boles, J.S. 2004, 'Inter-domain work-family, family-
work conflict and police work satisfaction', Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, 27, 3, pp. 380-395.
Howze, P.C. and Dalrymple, C. 2004, 'Consensus without all the meetings: using the
Delphi method to determine course content for library instruction', Reference
Services Review, 32, 2, pp. 174-184.
416
Huang, T-C., Lawler, J. and Lei, C-Y. 2007, 'The Effects of Quality of Work Life on
Commitment and Turnover Intention', Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 6, pp.
735-750.
Hunt, J.W. and Saul, P.N. 1975, The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in
males and females, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 4, pp. 690-702.
Iqbal, A., Kokash, H. A. and Al-Oun, S. 2011, The Impact Assessment Of Demographic
Factors On Faculty Commitment In The Kingdom of Saudi Arabian Universities,
Journal of College Teaching and Learning; Feb 2011; 8, 2, pp 1-13.
Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S.L. 2006, Using Mixed-Methods Sequential
Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice, Field Methods, 18, pp.3-20.
Iverson, R.D. and Buttigieg, D.M. 1999, 'Affective, Normative and Continuance
Commitment: can the 'right kind' of commitment be managed?' Journal of
Management Studies, 36, 3, pp. 307-333.
Jang, E.E., McDougall, D.E., Pollon, D., Herbert, M. and Russell, P. 2008, 'Integrative
Mixed Methods Data Analytic Strategies in Research on School Success in
Challenging Circumstances', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, p. 221-231.
Joiner, T.A. and Bakalis, S. 2006, 'The antecedents of organizational commitment: the
case of Australian casual academics', International Journal of Educational
Management, 20, 6, pp. 439-452.
Jones, L. and Page, D. 1987, 'Theories of Motivation', Education and Training,
May/June, pp. 12-16.
Jose, P.E. 2008, ModGraph-I: A Programme to compute cell means for the graphical
display of moderation analyses: the internet version, <http://www.victoria.ac.nz
/psyc/paul-jose-files/modgraph/modgraph.php> (5 December 2009).
'Kakitangan swasta dibebani tugas, gaji rendah [transl. Maximum Taskloads, Low Pay
for Private Employees] ', 2007, Berita Harian, 8 June 2007.
Kalton, G. 1983, Introduction to Survey Sampling, Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences, Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
Kamsari, S.A. 2007, '1.3 juta pelajar IPTA, IPTS menjelang 2010 [transl. 1.3 Million
Students in Public and Private Higher Education Institutions in 2010]', Utusan
Malaysia, 11 Jun 2007.
Kanji, G.K. and Malik, A.T.A. 1998, 'Total quality management and higher education in
Malaysia', Total Quality Management, 9, 4/5, pp. 130-132.
Karatepe, M.O. and Tekinkus, M. 2006, 'The effects of work-family conflict, emotional
exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees',
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24, 3, pp. 173-193.
Keong, C.K. and Sheehan, B. 2004, 'An Assessment of the Multidimensionality of
Organisational Commitment in Malaysia', Malaysian Management Review, 39, 2.
Pp. 34-46.
Khalid, S., Irshad M.Z. and Mahmood, B. 2012, Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff:
A Comparative Analysis between Public and Private Sector Universities of
Punjab, Pakistan, International Journal of Business and Management, 7, 1, pp.
126-136.
Kiessling, T. and Harvey, M. 2005, 'Strategic global human resource management
research in the twenty-first century: an endorsement of the mixed-method
417
research methodology', The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16, 1, pp. 222-245.
Kim, D., Twombly, S. and Wolf-Wendel, L. 2008, 'Factors Predicting Community
College Faculty Satisfaction with Instructional Autonomy', Community College
Review, 35, 3, pp. 159-180.
Kim, T.L. 1995, 'University in the context of national development: A case study of
Malaysian academic's perceptions', Phd Thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton , B. and Swart, J. 2005, 'Satisfaction with
HR practices and commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all',
Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 4, pp. 9-29.
Klein, J.J. 2007, 'The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Leadership Practices: A
Survey-Based Analysis of Full-time Business Faculty in The Wisconsin Technical
College System', PhD Thesis, Capella University.
Knight, J. and Morshidi, S. 2011, The complexities and challenges of regional education
hubs: focus on Malaysia, High Education, 62, pp. 593-606.
Konting, M.M. 1993, Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan [transl. Research Methodology in
Education], Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Koustelios, A.D. 2001, 'Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek teachers',
International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 7, pp. 354-358.
Kurikulum universiti awam dikaji semula setiap 3 tahun [transl. public universities
curricula will be reviewed every three years], 2007, Utusan Malaysia, 11 June
2007.
Ksk, F. 2003, 'Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic and
administrative staff in Turkey', Career Development International, 8,7, pp. 347-
356.
Labatmediene, L., Endriulaitiene, A. and Gustainiene, L. 2007, 'Individual correlates of
organisational commitment and intention to leave the organisation', Baltic Journal
of Management, 2, 2, pp. 196-212.
Lambert, E.G. and Paoline, E.A. 2008, 'The Influence of Individual, Job, and
Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff Job Stress, Job Satisfaction,
and Organizational Commitment', Criminal Justice Review, 33, pp. 541-564.
Lasanowski, V. 2009, International student mobility: Status report. London: UK: The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Legg, J.R.J. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction at Selected University Licensed CPB Qualified Public
Radio Stations: An Application of Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory', Ohio
University.
Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H. and Briers, G.E. 2001, Handling Nonresponse In Social
Science Research, Journal of Agricultural Education, 42, 4, pp. 43-53.
Litwin, M.S. 1995, How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Lo, M. and Ramayah, T. 2011, Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysian SMEs,
Journal of Management Development, 30, 4, pp. 427-440.
Locke, E.A. 1976, 'The nature and causes of job satisfaction', in Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
418
Lok, P. 1997, 'The Influence of Organisational Culture, Subculture, Leadership Style and
Job Satisfaction on Organisational Commitment', Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Lowenstein, S.R., Fernandez, G. and Crane, L.A. 2007, Medical school faculty
discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers, BMC
Medical Education, 7, 37, pp. 1-8.
Lynch, B. P. and Verdin, J. A. 1983, Job Satisfaction in Libraries: Relationships of the
Work Itself, Age, Sex, Occupational Group, Tenure, Supervisory Level, Career
Commitment, and Library Department, Library Quarterly, 53, pp.434-447.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. 2002, 'A
Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable
Effects', Psychological Methods, 7, 1, pp. 83-104.
Mahmud, Z. 2007, 'Tekanan Terhadap IPTA [transl. Pressures on Malaysian Public
Universities]', Utusan Malaysia, 5 April 2007.
Malaysian Qualification Agency, The 2011 Rating System for Malaysian Higher
Education Institutions (SETARA11), http://www.mqa.gov.my/SETARA11 (25
February 2013).
Malaysia steps up to the challenge, 2005, Asia Today International, 01/10/2005 p.49.
Malik, E. and Naeem, B. 2011, Role Of Perceived Organizational Justice In Job
Satisfaction: Evidence From Higher Education Institutions Of Pakistan,
Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3, 8, 662-673.
Mamiseishvili, K. 2010, Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Perceptions of
Foreign-Born Faculty at Public 2-Year Institutions, Community College Review
2011 39, pp 26-45.
Marcinkus, W.C., Whelan-Berry, K.S. and Gordon, J.R. 2007, 'The relationship of social
support to the work-family balance and work outcomes of midlife women',
Women in Management Review, 22, 2, pp. 86-111.
Markovits, Y. and Davis, A.J. 2007, 'Organizational Commitment Profiles and Job
Satisfaction among Greek Private and Public Sector Employees', International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7, 1, pp. 77-99.
Maslow, A.H. 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
May-Chiun, L. and Ramayah, T. 2011, Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysian
SMEs, Journal of Management Development, 30, 4, pp. 427-440.
McComb, E.D. 2006, 'An Evaluation of the Three-Component Model of Occupational
Commitment Among New Zealand General Practitioners', Otago Management
Graduate Review, 4, pp. 67-87.
McDowell, I. 2006, Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires,
Third Edition ed., New York: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, D. 1987, The Human Side of Enterprise, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Meade, A.W., Watson, A.M. and Kroustalis, C.M. 2007, Assessing Common Methods
Bias in Organizational Research, paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. 1997, Commitment in the workplace: Theory, Research and
Application, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
419
Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. 1998, 'Examination of the combined effects of
work values and early work experiences on organisational commitment', Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19, 1, pp. 29-52.
Miner, J.B. 2005. Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and
Leadership, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2012, National Education Philosophy, <http://www.
moe.gov.my/tayang.php?laman =falsafahandbhs=en> (21 October 2012).
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012a, Macro Data, <http://www.mohe.gov.my
/statistik_v3/stat1.php> (21 October 2012).
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2012b, Macro Data, <http://www.mohe.gov.my/
web_statistik/statistik_pdf_2008_05/data_makro_1-2.pdf> (10 February 2012).
Mohamad, M. 2002, 'Education, Sowing the Seeds of Great Minds', in M Yeoh (ed.), 21st
Century Malaysia, Challenges and Strategies in Attaining Vision 2020, London:
ASEAN Academic Press Ltd.
Mohamed, M. 2006, 'Help academia to grow and excel; [Supplement Edition]',
Malaysian Business, 16 April 2006.
Mohd Noor, K. 2004, The implementation of MS ISO 9002 Quality System in the
context of teaching and learning process and job satisfaction among teachers in
Gemereh Segamat Secondary School, Master Thesis, Johor Bahru: Technology
University of Malaysia.
Mohd Noor, K. 2007, 'Mengintegrasi pensyarah, industri [transl. Integrating academics
and the industry]', Utusan Malaysia, 14 Jun 2007.
Moore, F. 2007, 'Work-life balance: contrasting managers and workers in an MNC',
Employee Relations, 29, 4, pp. 385-399.
Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J. and
Thomas, H. 2006, 'Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and
implications', Qualitative Research, 6, 1, pp. 4559.
Morgan, D.L. 2007, 'Pragmatism as a Philosophical Foundation for Mixed Methods
Research', in VLP Clark and JW Creswell (eds), The Mixed Methods Reader,
California: Sage Publications, pp. 27-65.
Morris, D., Yaakob, A. and Wood, G. 2004, 'Attitudes towards pay and promotion in the
Malaysian higher educational sector', Employee Relations, 26, 2, pp. 137-50.
Morshidi, S. 2006, Transnational higher education in Malaysia: Balancing benefits and
concerns through regulations, RIHE International Publication Series, Japan:
Hiroshima University.
Muller-Camen, M. and Salzgeber, S. 2005, 'Changes in Academic Work and the Chair
Regime: The Case of German Business Administration Academics', Organization
Studies, 26, 2, pp. 271-290.
Murray, R.A. 1999, 'Job Satisfaction of Professional and Paraprofessional Library Staff at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill', unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of North Carolina.
Murrells, T., Robinson, S. and Griffiths, P. 2008, 'Job satisfaction trends during nurses'
early career', BMC Nursing, 7, 7, pp. 1-13.
Mustapha, M. and Daud, N. 2012, Perceived Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,
Career Commitment and Turnover Intention of Knowledge Workers,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 15, pp. 157-165.
420
The National Education System, High-Tertiary Level, 2007, <http://www.studymalaysia.
com /education/edusystem.php?fn=high-tertiary_lvl>. (27 March 2007).
Nasurdin, A.M., Ramayah, T. and Hemdi, M.A. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction and Turnover
Intentions: Is Commitment a Mediator?' paper presented to 2nd International
Conference on Business and Economics: Capitalising the Potential of the Asian
Integrated Market, Padang, Indonesia, 28-30 July 2005.
Nawab, S. and Bhatti, K.K. 2011, Influence of Employee Compensation on
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Case Study of Educational
Sector of Pakistan, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 8, pp. 25-
32.
Neese, W. T. 2011, The Impact of Department Restructuring on Job Satisfaction for
Marketing Faculty, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
17, 1, pp 69-76.
Nelson, B. 2002a, Higher Education at the Crossroads: An Overview Paper, The
Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
Nelson, B. 2002b, Meeting the Challenges: the Governance and Management of
Universities, The Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
Nelson, B. 2002c, Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship, The
Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
Newby, J. E. 1999, Job Satisfaction of Middle School Principals in Virginia, PhD
Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Ng, L. 2005, 'Education watch; [Supplement Edition]', Malaysian Business, Nov 16,
2005.
Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. 2008, 'Toward a Further Understanding of the
Relationships between Perceptions of Support and Work Attitudes, A Meta-
Analysis', Group and Organization Management, 33, 3, pp. 243-268.
Nikandrou, I., Panayotopoulou, L. and Apospori, E. 2008, 'The impact of individual and
organizational characteristics on work-family conflict and career outcomes',
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 5, pp. 576-598.
Noblet, A., Cooper, C., McWilliams, J. and Rudd, A. 2007, 'Wellbeing, Job Satisfaction
and Commitment among Australian Community Health Workers: The
Relationship with Working Conditions', Australian Journal of Primary Health,
13, 3, pp. 40-48.
Noordin, F. and Jusoff, K. 2009, 'Levels of Job Satisfaction amongst Malaysian
Academic Staff', Asian Social Science, 5, 5, pp. 122-128.
O'Leary, J. 2006, 'The Time Higher: World University Rankings', The Times Higher
Education Supplement, pp. 1-16.
OMalley, M. 2000, Creating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented
Employees by Building Relationship That Last, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Oii, J. 2005, 'Tackle the core issue', Malaysian Business, 1 July 2005.
Okpara, J.O. 2006, 'Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness in pay,
promotion, and job satisfaction in a sub-Saharan African economy', Women in
Management Review, 21, 3, pp. 224-240.
Okpara, J.O., Squillace, M., and Erondu, E.A. 2005, Gender differences and job
satisfaction: study of university teachers in the United States, Women in
Management Review, 20, 3, pp. 177-190.
421
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Johnson, R.B. 2006, 'Type of Legitimation (Validity) in Mixed
Methods Research', in Plano-Clark, V.L. and Creswell, J.W. (eds), The Mixed
Methods Reader, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Osborne, J.W. 2008, Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Los Angeles: SAGE
Publication.
Oshagbemi, T. 1997a, 'Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Higher Education',
Education and Training, 39, 9, pp. 22-31.
Oshagbemi, T. 1997b, 'Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers', Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 12, 1, pp. 27-39.
Oshagbemi, T. 1999a, 'Academics and Their Managers: A Comparative Study in Job
Satisfaction', Personnel Review, 28, 1 and 2, pp. 108-123.
Oshagbemi, T. 1999b, 'Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item
measures? 'Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 5, pp. 388-403.
Titus Oshagbemi, (2000) "Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university
teachers", Women In Management Review, 15,7, pp.331343.
Oyler, J.D. 2007, 'Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Organisational
and Community Embeddedness', Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Pallant, J. 2001, SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows (Version 10), New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Pallant, J. 2011, SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows (Version 18), New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Pare, G., Tremblay, M. and Lalonde, P. 2000, The Measurement and Antecedents of
Turnover Intention among IT Professionals, Cahier du Gresi No 00-12.
Pinder, C.C. 1984, 'Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory', in VH Vroom and EL
Deci (eds), Management and Motivation, Selected Readings, Penguin Books,
England.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. 2003, Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, pp. 879-903.
Polonsky, M.J., Juric, B. and Mankelow, G. 2003, 'Attitudes about Work Practices, Time
Allocation, and Publication Output: Profile of U.S. Marketing Academics',
Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 3, pp. 218-230.
Poole, M. and Bornholt, L. 1998, 'Career Development of Academics: Cross-cultural and
Lifespan Factors', International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 1, pp.
103-126.
Porter, K., Smith, P. and Fagg, R. 2006, Leadership and Management for HR
Professionals, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Potter, S .(ed) 2006, Doing postgraduate research, 2nd ed., London: The Open
University in association with SAGE Publications.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. 2004, 'SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models', Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computers, 36, 4, pp. 717-731.
Premeaux, S.F., Adkins, C.L. and Mossholder, K.W. 2007, Balancing work and family:
A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 705727.
422
Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. 1981, 'A causal model of turnover for nurses', Academy of
Management Journal (pre-1986), 24, 3, pp. 543-565.
Rad, A.M.M. and Yarmohammadian, M.H. 2006, A study of relationship between
managers leadership style and employees job satisfaction. Leadership in Health
Services, 19, 2, pp. xi-xxviii.
Rahim, A.F. 2007, 'Kurikulum universiti awam dikaji semula setiap 3 tahun [transl.
public universities curricula will be reviewed every three years]', Utusan
Malaysia, 11 June 2007.
Rahman, M.A.A. 1997, 'The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in
research organization', Master Thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Raja Zainal Abidin, R.Z. 2007, 'Social Policy Formulation And Implementation In
Malaysia', paper presented to National Conference On Integrated Social Policies,
Cairo, Egypt, <http://www.escwa.org.lb/sp-Egypt/>(7 February 2007).
Ramakrishnan, M. 2005, 'Malaysia steps up to the challenge', Asia Today International,
Melbourne: LexisNexis.
Ranz, J., Stueve, A. and McQuistion, H.L. 2001, 'The Role of the Psychiatrist: Job
Satisfaction of Medical Directors and Staff Psychiatrists', Community Mental
Health Journal, 37, 6, pp. 525-539.
Ray, N.M. and Tabor, S.W. 2003, 'Cyber survey come of age', Marketing Research,
Spring, pp. 32-37.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., and Swartz, E. 1998, Doing Research in Business
and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, London: SAGE
Publications.
Rizvi, F. 2004, 'Globalisation and the Dilemmas of Australian Higher Education', Critical
Perspectives on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies, 23, 2, pp. 33-42.
Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M.K. 1999, Management, New York: Prentice Hall.
Roberts, J.E. And Chonko, L.B. 1994, Sex-Differences In The Effect Of Satisfaction
With Pay On Sales Forceturnover, Journal Of Social Behavior And Personality,
9, 3, pp. 507-516.
Rodeghier, M. 1996, Survey with Confidence: A Practical Guide to Survey Research
Using SPSS, Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Rogelberg, S.G. and Stanton, J.M. 2007, Understanding and Dealing with
Organizational Survey Nonresponse, Organizational Research Methods, 10,
pp.195-209.
Rogers, J.D., Claw, K.E. and Kash, T.J 1994, 'Increasing job satisfaction of service
personnel', Journal of Services Marketing, 8, 1, pp. 14-26.
Roscoe, J.T. 1969, Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rotter, J.B. 1964, Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rungruang, P. 2007, 'The Three-Component Model of Organisational Commitment in
Thailand', TMC Academic Journal, 2, 2, pp. 55-70.
Saad, A.W., 1992, 'Port clerical staff's perception towards job satisfaction: A comparative
study between public and private sectors', Master Thesis, University Putra
Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
423
Saane, N.V., Sluiter, J.K., Verbeek, J.H.A.M. and Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. 2003,
'Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction- a systematic
review', Occupational Medicine, 53, 3, pp. 191-200.
Saeednia, Y. 2009, The need to know and to understand in Maslows basic needs
hierarchy. US-China Education Review, 6, 9, pp. 52-57.
Saiyadain, M.S. 1996, 'Correlates of job satisfaction among Malaysian Managers',
Malaysian Management Review, 31, 3, pp.1-14.
Samad, S. 2006, 'Assessing the Effects of Work and Family Related Factors on Women
Well-Being', Journal of American Academy of Business, 9, 1, pp. 52-57.
Santhapparaj, A.S. and Syed, S.A. 2005, 'Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff in
Private Universities in Malaysia', Journal of Social Sciences, 1, 2, pp. 72-76.
Sarjit, K., Morshidi, S., and Norzaini, A. 2008, Globalization and internationalization of
higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Press.
Sarker, S.J., Crossman, A. and Chinmeteepituck, P. 2003, 'The relationships of age and
length of service with job satisfaction: an examination of hotel employees in
Thailand', Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 7, pp. 745-758.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2000, Research Methods for Business Students,
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Sawyer, K.R., Johnson, J. and Holub, M. 2007, Decline in Academe, Social Science
Research Network, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961993>
(12 May 2010).
Saygi, H., Tolon, T. and Tekogul, H. 2011, Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff In
Fisheries Faculties At Turkish Universities, Social Behavior and Personality; 39,
10, pp. 1395-1402.
Scholarios, D. and Marks, A. 2004, 'Work-life balance and the software worker', Human
Resource Management Journal, 14, 2, pp. 54-74.
Scott, G. 2004, 'Change Matters: Making a Difference in Higher Education', paper
presented to Quality in a time of change: proceedings of the Australian
Universities Quality Forum 2004, Adelaide, Australia, Melbourne.
Seashore, S.E. and Taber, T.D. 1975, 'Job Satisfaction Indicators and Their Correlates',
American Behavioral Scientist, 18, pp. 333-368.
Sekaran, U. 2000, Research Methods for Business, A Skill-Building Approach, New
York: John-Wiley and Sons.
Sentovich, C. 2004, 'Teacher Satisfaction in Public, Private, and Charter Schools: A
Multi-Level Analysis', PhD Thesis, University of South Florida.
Shankar, S.J. 2005, 'Ghauth eyes world-class status', Malaysian Business, 16 November
2005.
Slattery, J.P. and Selvarajan, T.T.R. 2005, 'Antecedents to Temporary Employee's
Turnover Intention', Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 1, p
53.
Sohail, M.S., Rajadurai, J. and Abdul Rahman, N.A. 2003, 'Managing quality in higher
education: a Malaysian case study', International Journal of Educational
Management, 17, 4, pp. 141-146.
Spector, P.E. 1996, Industrial Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
424
Spector, P.E. 1997, Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences,
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Stallworth, L. 2004, 'Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment to
accounting organizations', Managerial Auditing Journal, 19, 7, pp. 945-55.
Stanton, P., Willis, E. and Young, S. 2005, Workplace reform in the healthcare industry:
the Australian experience, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stemple, J.D.J. 2004, 'Job Satisfaction of High School Principals in Virginia', Phd Thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Stevens, P.A. 2005, The job satisfaction of English academics and their intentions to quit
academe, NIESR Discussion Papers 262, National Institute of Economic and
Social Research.
Subramani, S. and Kempner, K. 2002, 'Malaysian higher education: Captive or post-
Western?', Australia Journal of Education, 46, 3, pp. 231-254.
Sverko, B., Arambasic, L. and Galesic, M. 2002, 'Work-life Balance Among Croatian
Employees: Role Time Commitment, Work-home Interference and Well-being',
Social Science Information, 41, pp. 281-301.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Edition,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tackle the core issue, 2005, Malaysian Business, 1 July 2005, p.10.
Tahir, S. 1995, 'Factors of job satisfaction among workshop teachers: A study at
Vocational Secondary School of Batu Pahat Johor', Master thesis, Technology
University of Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Talbot, C. 1992, 'Evaluation and Validation: A Mixed Approach', Journal of European
Industrial Training, 16, 5, pp. 26-32.
Tan, D. and Akhtar, S. 1995, 'A Comparison of Job-Facet Satisfaction and Commitment
Determinants of Turnover Intention', International Journal of Employment
Studies, 3, 1, pp. 35-51.
Tanner, B.M.J. 2007, 'An Analysis of the Relationships among Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Trust, and Organizational Commitment in an Acute Care
Hospital', Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. 1998, Mixed methodology : combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds) 2003, Handbooks of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Technology University of Malaysia 2007, UTM Towards World Class University 2010,
Technology University of Malaysia, <http://www.utm.my/wcu/wcu.htm> (15
April 2007).
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. 2009, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research,
Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. 1993, 'Job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings',
Personnel Psychology, 46, 2, pp. 259-293.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R. and Cooper, B. 2007, Management Research Methods, Port
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
425
Thillaisundaram, A. 2003, 'Measurement of Teaching and Research Outputs in Higher
Education', Journal of Economics Studies, 40, 1/2, pp. 1-21.
Thong, L.K. 1995, 'University in the context of national development: A case-study of
Malaysian academics' perceptions', University of Alberta, Canada.
Tipples, R. and Jones, P. 1999, 'Employment Relations, Efficiency and Effectiveness in
Australasian Universities Two Case Studies', International Journal of
Employment Studies, 7, 1, pp. 149-156.
Toker, B. 2011, 'Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey',
Quality Assurance in Education, 19, 2, pp. 156-169.
Tu, L., Plaisent, M., Bernard, P. and Maguiraga, L. 2005, 'Comparative age differences of
job satisfaction on faculty at higher education level: China and Taiwan',
International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 3, pp. 259-267.
UNESCO, 2005, Reforming Higher Education, <http://portal.unesco.org/education/en
/ev.phpURL_ID=40215andURL_DO=DO_TOPICandURL_SECTION=201.html
> (20 April 2010).
United Nations, 2003, Social Policy in Malaysia, <http://www.escwa.org.lb/sp-
readings/SOCIAL%20POLICIES%20IN%20 MALAYSIA.pdf> (29 March
2010).
University of Malaya, 2012, History of UM, <http://www.um.edu.my
/discover_um/history_of_um.php?intPrefLangID=1and> (21 October 2012).
University Putra Malaysia, 2007, Research and Innovation, <http://www.upm.edu.my/
?aktvt=contentandkat=Candkod=20070126026073044172169875> (15 April
2010).
Utusan Malaysia, 2007a, '60% pensyarah PhD di setiap IPTA tahun 2010 [transl. 60%
PhD Lecturers in all Public Universities by 2010], Utusan Malaysia, 5 June
2007.
Utusan Malaysia, 2007b, 'IPT perlu jaga kualiti kursus - PM [transl. Universities should
maintain their courses quality-Prime Minister]', Utusan Malaysia, 5 June 2007.
Utusan Malaysia, 2007c, 'Kerangka Petunjuk Prestasi IPTA dibangunkan [transl. Public
Universities' Key Performance Indicator will be developed]', Utusan Malaysia, 1
July 2007.
Utusan Malaysia, 2007d, 'Kerjasama universiti, swasta digalakkan [transl. Collaboration
of Universities and the Industry is encouraged]', Utusan Malaysia, 18 May 2007.
Utusan Malaysia, 2007e, 'Sistem 'rating' IPTS diperkenal pada Jun [Transl. Private
Higher Education rating system will be introduced in June]', Utusan Malaysia, 16
April 2007.
van Teijlingen, E. and Hundley, V. 2001, 'The Importance of Pilot Studies', Social
Research Update, 35, pp. 1-4.
Vaus, D. 2004, Research Design in Social Research, London: SAGE Publications.
Villanueva, D. and Djurkovic, N. 2009, 'Occupational Stress and Intention to Leave
Among Employees in Small and Medium Enterprises', International Journal of
Stress Management, 16, 2, pp. 124-137.
Virick, M., Lily, J.D. and Casper, W.J. 2007, 'Doing more with less: An analysis of work
life balance among layoff survivors', Career Development International, 12, 5,
pp. 463-480.
Vroom, V.H. 1964, Work and Motivation, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
426
Vroom, V.H. 1995, Work and Motivation, California: Josey-Bass Inc.
Vroom, V.H. and Deci, E.L. (eds) 1992, Management and Motivation, Selected Readings,
2nd. ed, England: Penguin Books.
Walford, G. 2001, Doing qualitative educational research : a personal guide to the
research process, London: Continuum.
Ward-Warmedinger, M. E. and Sloane, P.J. 1999, Job Satisfaction within the Scottish
Academic Profession, IZA Discussion Paper 38, Institute for the Study of Labor.
Waskiewicz, S.P. 1999, 'Variables That Contribute to Job Satisfaction of Secondary
School Assistant Principals', PhD Thesis,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Waters, M.A. and Bardoel, E.A. 2006, Work-family policies in the context of higher
education: Useful or symbolic?, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44,
1, pp. 67-82.
Weir, M. (ed.) 1976, Job Satisfaction, Challenge and Response in Modern Britain,
Glasgow: Fontana/William Collins.
Westfall, R. 2012, An Analysis of Person-Job Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Student
Academic Performance, Tarleton State University. PhD Dissertation.
Westman, M., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T. 2009, 'Expert commentary on worklife
balance and crossover of emotions and experiences: Theoretical and practice
advancements', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, pp. 587-95.
Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar, S. and Lotfi-Goodarzi, F. 2012, What Is the Relationship between
Spiritual Intelligence and Job Satisfaction among MA and BA Teachers?,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 8, pp.299-303.
Yeoh, T.E.S. 2007, 'The Facet Satisfaction Scale: Enhancing the Measurement of Job
Satisfaction', University of North Texas. PhD Dissertation.
Young, S. Bartram, T., Stanton, P. and Leggat, S.G. 2010, High performance work
systems and employee well-being: A two stage study of a rural Australian
hospital, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 24, 2, pp. 182-199.
Youngcourt, S.S. 2005, 'Examination of Supervisor Assessments of Employee Work-Life
Conflict, Supervision Support, and Subsequent Outcomes', PhD Thesis, Texas
A&M University.
Yusof, A.M. and Mohamed, A. 2002, 'Understanding Corporatisation in Malaysia',
Keeping Good Companies, 54, 2, pp. 78-81.
Zakaria, Z. 2001, 'Factors Related to Information Technology Implementation in the
Malaysian Ministry of Education Polytechnics', Phd Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Zin, R.M. 2006, 'The Relationships between Family and Career-related Factors and
Organizational Commitment: A Malaysian Case', The Business Review, 5, 2, pp.
117-121.
427

Job Statisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Job Statisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Job Statisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOB SATISFACTION OF ACADEMICS IN

MALAYSIAN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

A thesis submitted in total fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

La Trobe Business School

Table of contents ....ii

List of figures ....xiii

List of tables ..xiv

List of appendices xxi

Thesis summary ..xxii

Statement of Authorship ..xxiii

1.2 Problem Statement and Significance of the Study 3

1.3 A Brief History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7

1.3.1 History and Background of Higher Education in Malaysia 7

1.3.2 The Global Context of Higher Education 13

1.4 Research Aims 18

1.5 Structure of the Thesis 18

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 Drivers and Challenges of Higher Education in Malaysia 22

2.2.2 Summary for Drivers and Challenges of Malaysian Higher Education 32

2.3.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction 33

2.4 Antecedents of Job Satisfaction 45

2.5 Consequence of Job Satisfaction: Intention to Leave 61

2.6 Conceptual Framework for the Study 63

2.7 Summary of Research Questions 65

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.2 Research Paradigm and Design 70

3.3 Mixed Methods Research Design Model 74

3.5 Background of the Qualitative Study 99

3.6 Background of the Quantitative Study: Demographic Summary 108

3.7 Findings of Normality Tests of Variables in Quantitative Study 111

3.8 Measures of Reliability 112

3.10 Conclusion 116

Chapter 4: SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITIES

4.1 Introduction 117

4.2 Qualitative Study Findings: General Satisfaction with GUPS 118

4.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with GUPS 133

Chapter 5: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION: PAY,

5.1 Introduction 148

5.2 Pay Satisfaction 150

5.3 Satisfaction with Promotion 163

5.4 Supervision Satisfaction 175

5.5 Fringe Benefits 192

5.5.3 Summary of Key Findings of Satisfaction with Fringe Benefits 201

5.6 Contingent Rewards Satisfaction 202

5.7 Conclusion 211

Chapter 6: ORGANISATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION:

6.1 Introduction 215

6.3 Satisfaction with Co-Workers 232

6.4 Satisfaction with Nature of Work 247

6.5 Communication 261

6.6 Conclusion 273

Chapter 7: SATISFACTION WITH WORK-LIFE BALANCE

7.1 Introduction 278

7. 3 Qualitative study Findings: Key Issues Pertaining to Work-Life Balance 283

7.4 Quantitative Study Findings: Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance 290

7.5 Conclusion 297

Chapter 8: DESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS IN THE ONLINE

8.1 Introduction 302

8.2 Level of Overall Job Satisfaction of Academics in Malaysian