Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016

ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)

http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of

Academicians in Indian Context
Surekha Rana1, Pooja Agrawal2
1
Professor, KGC, Dehradun, GurukulKangri University, Haridwar, India
2
Research Scholar, KGC, Dehradun, GurukulKangri University, Haridwar, India
[email protected]

Abstract: Academicians are the vital element of an institute because without them no institute can exist. In-fact,
they are considered as arterial system of an institute. Therefore, the progressive institutions are taking
tremendous pain in retaining the academic staff for the benefit of the accreditation and the satisfaction of the
other stakeholders. In return having satisfied academicians in the workforce is important for the management
and engineering institutions.

Job satisfaction refers to an emotional feeling of employees towards their job. It can be measured through the
difference between that what they are getting and what they are expecting from their job.
The core objective of this research papers to examine the relationship between the dimensions of job
(remuneration, working conditions, supervision and job content) with job satisfaction and the contribution of
each dimension in the development of job satisfaction. Sample unit was academicians of different management
and engineering institutes situated in Delhi-NCR, India. Simple random sampling was applied and 235
academicians were targeted for the sample.

Primary data were collected through a self-structured questionnaire. Collected data was analysed by using
descriptive and regression analysis. The findings revealed a positive, significant and linear relationship
amongst the dimensions of job and job satisfaction. Furthermore, findings also indicated that remuneration was
the most eminent dimension of job which contributed up to extent level in the development of job satisfaction
with the highest value .410β. Followed by the contribution of working conditions, supervision and job content in
the development of job satisfaction with the values .399, .324 and .238βrespectively.

Keywords: Job satisfaction, Remuneration, Working conditions, Job content, Supervision

1. INTRODUCTION
Academicians are the prominent entityof an institute because they share their knowledge with the students and
make them capable to perform their responsibilities in different domainsperfectly. The wide area of
responsibilities of academicians have resulted into sustainable pressure,high level of tension, fear and anxiety
into their job domain. Few determinant like inadequate remuneration, overloaded work, responsibility without
appropriate authority, inappropriate working conditions, lack of recognition, job insecurity, unavailability of
resources and conflict with peers have also acted as catalyst and influenced the academicians’ ability and also
developed stress that have resulted in the high attrition rate, high turnover rate, deterioration in job satisfaction
as well as commitment towards their job and organizations.

Some researchers have indicated that whenever academicians were neither satisfied nor committed towards their
institute then along with them, students were also sufferers in an adverse way (Csikzentmihalyiet al., 1986 and
Rosenholt, 1989).So, along with time, management and engineering institutions have been demanding highly
educated, committed and satisfied academicians to perform their duties in an effective manner.Imperatively
from last few decades,job satisfaction has come to occupy a worldwide importance. Job satisfaction leads to
employee satisfaction. It has always been observed that satisfied employees are highly productive. This in return
helps and benefits organization and society.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 228

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

The term “JOB SATISFACTION” was conceived by “HOPPOCK” in 1935.According to him, “Job satisfaction
is the combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person to
truthfully say that I am satisfied with my job”.

Vroom (1964) explainedthat job satisfaction as a feeling that is associated with the role of the employee in the
organization. It was also added that job satisfaction is as affective orientations on the part of individuals toward
work roles which they are presently occupying. George et al.,(2008) defined that job satisfaction is the
combination of feeling and beliefs that individual have about their current job. Individual’s levelsof degrees of
job satisfaction can range from extreme satisfaction to extreme dissatisfaction. In addition to having attitudes
about their jobs as a whole. Individual also can have attitudes about numerous aspects of their jobs such as the
kind of work they do, their co-workers, supervisors, working conditions and their remuneration.

Aziri (2008) stated that job satisfaction represents a feeling that appears as a result of the perception that the job
enables the material and psychological needs. In other parlance, job satisfaction is an end feeling of employees
about their job related with task, duties, remuneration and workplace atmosphere. It could be the emotional
attitude and feeling of a person after doing a work. It is a psychological aspect with an extent to which a
person’s task efficacy fulfill his dominant needs and in consistent with his values or expectations.

A number of researches (Vandenberg et al., 1992; Malik et al., 2015 and Innancaet al., 2015) propounded that
organizational commitment acted as a predictor of job satisfaction. Rana and Agrawal (2015) postulated that
reward and recognition had a positive impact on the degree of commitment which resulted in a higher level of
job satisfaction. Enormous researchers like (Spector, 1977; Cappelli, 1992; Alexander et al., 1994; Labov, 1997;
Shaw et al., 1998; Igalenset al., 1999; Bodur, 2002; Brewer et al., 2008; Kayalvzhiet al., 2011; Davel and Raval,
2014 and Unnamalai, 2015) listed out that job satisfaction of employees was influenced by a number of factors
like job content, occupational level, working conditions, promotion policy, behavior of peers and supervisors,
work culture, reward, recognition, remuneration and other benefits etc.

The present paper made an attempt to understand the relationship between dimensions of job (remuneration,
working conditions, supervision and job content) with job satisfaction and also analyzedthe impact of these
dimensions on the overall job satisfaction of academicians of different management and engineering institutes
situated in Delhi-NCR, India.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

2.1 Relationship between job satisfaction and its dimensions (remuneration, working conditions, supervision
and job content)

Enormous researchers conducted various researches to diagnose the relationship between job satisfaction and its
dimensions like remuneration, job content, working conditions, supervision, promotional opportunities, co-
workers etc. A number of researchers such as Spector, 1977; Cappelli, 1992; Alexander et al., 1994; Labov,
1997; Shaw et al., 1998; Igalens et al., 1999 and Bodur, 2002,found that employees’ job satisfaction influenced
by numerous factors like job content, occupational level, working conditions, promotion policy, behavior of co-
workers and supervisors, work culture, reward, recognition, remuneration and other benefits etc. Kayalvzhi et
al.(2011) conducted a survey to identify the different factors influencing job satisfaction of lecturers who
worked in self-financing institutes of South India. The results indicated that internal factors acted as a
motivating and satisfying factor such as praise, nature of work, advancement opportunity. On the other hand,
external factors were acting as a dissatisfying factor such as poor remuneration and other benefits offered by the
institutes.

Similarly, Leelavathy (2012) found that teacher-student relationship, job engagement and job role were
positively associated with job satisfaction while, remuneration, discipline and work atmosphere were negatively
related with job satisfaction among women teachers. Tabassum et al.(2012) determined a positive relationship
between teachers’ job satisfaction with remuneration, supervision and work-schedule flexibility. Furthermore,
findings also indicated that promotional opportunities were not found to be an influential factor leading to
teachers’ job satisfaction. Controversially, Unnamalia (2015) determined a weaker association between the job
satisfaction and dimensions of job (scale of pay, promotional opportunity, supervision, work schedule, physical

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 229

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

environment and interpersonal relationship). The findings of different researchers were very controversial. So,
present research is an attempt to diagnose the relationship between job satisfaction with its dimensions namely
remuneration, working conditions, supervision and job content.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of job (remuneration, supervision, working
conditions and job content) with job satisfaction.

2.2 Job satisfaction and remuneration

Remuneration is considered as an eminent factor for the employee’s job satisfaction. A number of researchers
like (Taylor et al., 1992; Boone et al., 1992; Lambert et al., 2001;Certo and Fox, 2002;Robbins et al., 2003 and
Malik et al., 2012)identified that remuneration had a positive impact on the level of employees’ job satisfaction.
They had reported that whenever the remuneration was perceived as fair, equal and justified by the employees
then they revealed a high satisfaction towards their job.

Furthermore, Monetary and non-monetary rewards like remuneration, bonus, incentives, praise and recognition
etc. helped in establishing harmonious and healthy relationship between employees and employers. It enhanced
the motivation level of employees which led to high level of job satisfaction (Cameron et al., 1977 and Gomez
et al., 1992). Similarly, Broad (2007) postulated that worthy internal as well as external rewards or incentives to
workforce enhanced their job performance and it resulted in the effective accomplishment of the goals of the
organization. A number of researches like Ingersoll and Smith, 2003; Buckley et al., 2004; Baker, 2005;
Johnson et al., 2005; Gonzalez et al., 2008 and Kopkowski, 2008 concluded that low remuneration was the root
cause of teachers to leave their teaching profession and moved towards other better options which provided
them higher remuneration.

H2: There is a significant impact of remuneration on the job satisfaction of academicians.

2.3 Job satisfaction and working conditions

Working conditions that are compatible with the physical comfort of an employee and help to do a better job,
leads to maximum job satisfaction of employees. Beer et al. (1984) conducted an attitude survey to gather
feedback of the perception of the work atmosphere by the workforce. It was concluded that work atmosphere
was a vital factor to influence the satisfaction level of employees. It covered setting of workplace related with
light, ventilation, temperature, office equipment, adequate arrangements for sitting and standing positions
according to the nature of the job.

Similarly, Luthans (1998) stated that whenever work place was hygienic, healthy and tend to be favorable then
employees would find it comfortable to come to workplace. On the other side, whenever all the conditions were
unfavorable then employees would find it complex to complete their job activities. Enormous researchers
(Vorster, 1992; Minarik et al., 2003; Monk, 2007; Liu, 2008 and Johnson et al., 2012) concluded the fact that
bad working conditions had an adverse impact on job satisfaction and also have emerged as a major factor to
influence the attrition rate of academicians.

H3: There is a significant impact of working conditions on the job satisfaction of academicians.

2.4 Job satisfactions and supervision

Supervisor’s behavior towards their employees is also an important determinant of job satisfaction. The
behavior of the supervisor plays a vital role in the development of satisfaction level of employees. Past
researches revealed that the harmonious relationship between supervisor and employees would have a positive
influence on the overall job satisfaction level of employees (Luthans, 1992; Moorhead et al., 1992; Kinicki et al.,
1994; Robbins, 1998; Aamodt, 1999; Baker, 2005; Tickler, 2008 and Cochran-Smith et al., 2011).Ting (1997)
postulated that whenever superior was supportive and co-operative in nature and helped sub-ordinates in
performing their job then they felt a greatest level of satisfaction, similar results were reported by some authors
(Luthans, 1992; Billingsley et al., 1992; Cramer, 1993; Robbins, 1998 and Aamodt, 1999) and they concluded

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 230

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

that the supportive and co-operative behavior of superiors with their sub-ordinates had a positive impact on the
overall job satisfaction level of employees.

H4: There is a significant impact of supervision on the job satisfaction of the academicians.

2.5 Job satisfaction and job content

Every employee wants to perform intellectually at their job. They desire for job rotation, variation in nature of
work and the less repetitiveness in job content. They also expect the autonomy and frequent feedback on their
performance that how better they are working. Different studies concluded that job content was an important
element in driving satisfaction. Enormous researchers (Luthans, 1992; Ting, 1997; Aamodt, 1999; Blau, 1999;
Liden et al., 2000 and Pandey, 2007) posited that employees felt greater satisfaction from their work whenever
work was more interesting, challenging and required variety of skill for performing different tasks. It was also
concluded that responsibilities and versatility attached with a job were an important element of leading high job
satisfaction.

H5: There is a significant impact of job content on the job satisfaction of academicians.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The key objective of this paper is to analyze the various dimensions of the job satisfaction and also diagnose
impact of each dimension on the satisfaction level of academicians of management and engineering institutes
located in Delhi-NCR, India. The different objectives for the present study can be listed out as follows:
 To analyze the relationship between the dimensions of job (remuneration, supervision, working
conditions and job content) with job satisfaction.
 To assess the impact of remuneration on the job satisfaction of academicians.
 To analyze the impact of working conditions on the job satisfaction of academicians.
 To examine the impact of supervision on the job satisfaction of academicians.
 To analyze the impact of job content on the job satisfaction of academicians.

4. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

H1: There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of job (remuneration, supervision, working
conditions and job content) with job satisfaction
H2: There is a significant impact of the remuneration on the job satisfaction of academicians
H3: There is a significant impact of the working conditions on the job satisfaction of academicians
H4: There is a significant impact of the supervision on the job satisfaction of academicians
H5: There is a significant impact of the job content on the job satisfaction of academicians

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.1 Research design

Cross sectional study has been done from 12 June 2015 to 15 October 2015.The research design used in this
present study is exploratory.

5.2 Sampling method

Sampling method is a process that would be adopt by a researcher in choosing sample from the population. For
the present study, simple random sampling method was used to pick up the sample respondents from the target
population.

5.3 Sample unit

Academicians of different management and engineering institutes located at Delhi-NCR, India.

5.4 Sample size

235 academicians.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 231

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

5.5 Data collection

Data collection is a process of identifying subjects and gathering data from these subjects (Burns and Grove,
1997). Both primary and secondary data were collected for the present research. Primary data were collected
through the survey method. Secondary data were collected through the journals, books and internet.

5.6 Instrument
A self-structured questionnaire was used to assess the academicians’ satisfaction level towards their job. To
finalize the questionnaire, experts from the relevant field were consulted and a pilot study was carried out to
assess its validity and reliability. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section-I containing 62 items
seek to assess the job satisfaction of the academicians and Section-II of the questionnaire comprised of queries
seeking information on their demographical background (gender, age, marital status, educational qualification,
nature of appointment, years of experience and annual gross income). To examine the reliability of the
questionnaire, the Cronbach's alpha was calculated. The value of Cronbach’s alpha was .787 as shown in the
following table-1.

Table 1: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha (α) No. of Items
0.787 62
5.7 Statistical tools
Descriptive analysis (percentage, mean) and regression analysis were applied to analyze the data collected
through questionnaire.

5.8 Limitations of the study

 The present paper reported only the responses collected from the management and engineering
institutes of Delhi-NCR, India.
 In this research, only those academicians considered who were presently working in the institutions.

6. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

6.1 Analysis of demographic variables

6.1.1 Distribution of respondents on the basis of gender

The distribution of respondents on the basis of gender is shown in table-2 as follows:

Table 2: Gender demographics and job satisfaction

Gender Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Male 134 57.0 188.68
Female 101 43.0 191.37
Total 235 100.0 189.84

From the table 2, it is revealed that 57percent of total respondents were male and 43percent were female. It was
also noticed that female staff had revealed more satisfaction towards their job as compared to male staff.

6.1.2 Distribution of respondents on the basis of age

From table-3, classification of respondents on the basis of age was analyzed.

Table 3: Age demographics and job satisfaction

Age Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Below 30 years 30 12.8 188.97
31 years to 35 years 103 43.8 191.49
36 years to 40 years 50 21.3 188.16
41 years to 45 years 30 12.8 189.13
46 years and above 22 9.4 188.09
Total 235 100.0 189.84

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 232

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

Table-3 revealed that only12.8percent of the respondents were in age group of below 30, 43.8percent of them
were in the age group of 31-35 years, 21.3percent of the respondents in the age group of 36-40 years,
12.8percent of them belonged from the age group of 41-45 years and only 9.4percent of them were in the age
group of above 46 years. Maximum number of respondents belonged to the age group of 31-35 years and this
similar age group respondents revealed comparatively higher level of job satisfaction as compared to other age
group respondents.

6.1.3 Distribution of respondents on the basis of marital status

Table-4, revealed the distribution of total respondents on the basis of their marital status.

Table 4: Marital status demographics and job satisfaction

Marital-status Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Married 177 75.3 190.61
Unmarried 51 21.7 186.12
Others 7 3.0 197.00
Total 235 100.0 189.84

Table-4 indicated that 75 percent teachers of total respondents were married, 21.7 percent teachers were
unmarried and only 3 percent teachers belonged to other categories like divorced, widowed etc. Majority of
respondents belonged to married class. Furthermore, results indicated that those teachers who belonged to other
category revealed higher job satisfaction as compared to married and unmarried.

6.1.4 Distribution of respondents on the basis of educational qualification

Table-5, indicated the classification of respondents on the basis of their educational qualification.

Table 5: Educational qualification demographics and job satisfaction

Educational qualification Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Graduate (B. Tech.) 14 6.0 202.93
Post Graduate 144 61.3 189.52
Doctorate 75 31.9 188.29
Post Doctorate 2 0.9 179.50
Total 235 100.0 189.84

Table-5 revealed that 6percent respondents had completed their graduation (B. Tech.), 61.3 percent respondents
had done their post-graduation, 31.9 percent of respondents had completed their doctorate degree and only 0.9
percent respondents had done their post doctorate course. Most of the respondents were post-graduate and table
also indicated that graduate (B. Tech.) had more satisfaction on their job as compared to other respondents.

6.1.5 Distribution of respondents on the basis of nature of appointment

Table-6, showed the distribution of total respondents on the basis of their nature of appointment.

Table 6: Nature of appointment demographics and job satisfaction

Nature of appointment Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Consolidated basis 126 53.6 189.96
Permanent basis 109 46.4 189.71
Total 235 100.0 189.84

From the table-6, it is indicated that 53.6percent of teachers were appointed on the consolidated basis while
46.4percent teachers were appointed on the permanent basis. Majority of respondents belonged to the category
of consolidated basis. Both category respondents had shown similar satisfaction level on their job.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 233

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

6.1.6 Distribution of respondents on the basis of experience

From table-7, the classification of respondents on the basis of their experience can be analyzed.

Table 7: Experience demographics and job satisfaction

Experience (in current Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
institute)
Below 1 year 10 4.3 171.44
1 to 3 years 58 24.7 189.45
3 to 5 years 69 29.4 193.55
5 to 7 years 39 16.6 192.36
7 to 9 years 29 12.3 188.17
9 years and above 30 12.8 185.93
Total 235 100.0 189.84

Table-7 postulated that only 4.3percent of respondents had experience below 1 year, 24.7percent of them had
experience of 1-3 years, 29.4percent of them had the experience of 3-5 years, 16.6percent of them hold the
experience of 5-7 years, 12.3percentof them had the experience of 7-9 years and 12.8percentof respondents had
the experience of 9 or more than 9 years in the current institute. From the above table the mean value indicated
that those respondents who had experienced of 3-5years in the current organization revealed maximum job
satisfaction as compared to other categories of respondents.

6.1.7 Income wise distribution

Table-8, classified the respondents on the basis of their income level.

Table-8: Income demographics and job satisfaction

Annual gross income Frequency of respondents Percentage of respondents Mean
Below Rs. 1,50,000 11 4.7 187.73
Rs. 1,50,001 to Rs. 3,00,000 46 19.6 186.69
Rs. 3,00,001 to Rs. 4,50,000 99 42.1 191.84
Rs. 4,50,001 to Rs. 6,00,000 53 22.6 191.72
Above Rs. 6,00,000 26 11.1 184.77
Total 235 100.0 189.84

Table-8 revealed that 4.7percent of employees had income below the Rs. 1,50,000, 19.6percent of them were
earning Rs. 1,50,001-Rs. 3,00,000, 42.1percent of them were earning Rs. 3,00,001-Rs. 4,50,000, 22.6percent of
them were earning Rs. 4,50,001-Rs. 6,00,000 and 11.1percent of employees were earning above Rs. 6,00,000
annually. Most of the employees belonged to the category of Rs. 3, 00,001- Rs. 4, 50,000. Mean value of the
above table indicated the respondents who earned between Rs. 3, 00,001-Rs. 4, 50,000 and Rs. 4, 50,001-
Rs. 6, 00,000 revealed higher level of satisfaction towards their job in comparison to other categories of
respondents.

6.2 Regression analysis

The regression analysis is applied to detect the impact of job dimensions (remuneration, job content, working
conditions and supervision) on the level of job satisfaction of academicians. The results indicated that these
dimensions have a positive and significant impact on the level of job satisfaction, R=0.894. The value of
R=89.4percent revealing that these dimensions have a positive and linear relationship with the job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the value of R2= 0.799, defined the 79.9percent proportion of variation of these dimensions in the
job satisfaction.
Table-9: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.894a 0.799 0.796 9.590
a. Predictors: (Constant), Working condition, Job content, Remuneration, Supervision
b. Dependent variable: Job satisfaction

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 234

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

Table-10: Regression
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta (β)
(Constant) 7.535 .955 9.188 .000
Remuneration 1.239 .095 .410 13.058 .000
Working condition 1.039 .086 .399 12.093 .000
Supervision 1.754 .176 .324 9.956 .000
Job content 1.159 .151 .238 7.674 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Job satisfaction
The regression equation that can be formulated based on the information obtained is as follows:

Job satisfaction = 7.535+ 0.410 (Remuneration) + 0.399 (Working conditions) + 0.324 (Supervision) +
0.238 (Job content)

From the above stated equation, it clearly indicates that the job satisfaction is the function of remuneration,
working conditions, supervision and job content. As a unit change in each of the variable (predictors) would
lead to give job satisfaction equal to8.906 units. So, this equation will be used to anticipate the level of
satisfaction among the employees at a given frame of time with respect to their present job.

7. DISCUSSION

Table 9, depicted a positive, strong and linear relationship between dimensions of job (remuneration, working
conditions, supervision and job content) and job satisfaction. This finding is consonant with the findings of
Munira et al. (2015) who propounded a positive and significant association between job satisfaction and
dimensions of job like peers, supervision, managerial support, working conditions, remuneration and other
benefits. On the other hand, the findings are inconsistent with the findings of Unnamalia (2015) who reported a
weaker relationship amongst the job satisfaction and dimensions of job (scale of pay, promotional opportunity,
supervision, work schedule, physical environment and interpersonal relationship). Furthermore, it was
concluded that the level of job satisfaction was a multifaceted phenomenon which could not be determined by
one or two dimension because each dimension had its unique contribution in the development of employees’ job
satisfaction.

Table 10 revealed that the dimensions of job (remuneration, working conditions, supervision and job content)
have a positive and significant impact on the overall job satisfaction level of academicians. Furthermore, table
indicated that remuneration and working conditions played an important role and contributed 0.410 and 0.399β
value in the development of job satisfaction respectively. After that supervision and job content contributed
0.324 and 0.238β value in the development of job satisfaction respectively.

Table 10 also showed that remuneration has a positive impact on the level of job satisfaction. The similar results
were reported by (Taylor et al., 1992; Boone et al., 1992; Lambert et al., 2001; Robbins et al., 2003 and Malik
et al., 2012). They concluded that higher salaries revealed higher job satisfaction and vice-versa. Chen et al.
(2006) added a new finding that apart from remuneration some other benefits like fair retirement scheme,
educational development and travelling allowances also had a positive impact on the satisfaction level of
teachers.

Similarly, table 10 revealed that working conditions also have a positive impact on the level of job satisfaction.
This finding is consistent with the findings of some researchers like Minarik et al., 2003; Liu, 2008 and Johnson
et al., 2012. They revealed that good working conditions resulted in higher level of job satisfaction and vice-
versa.

Table 10 indicated that supervision also has a positive impact on the level of job satisfaction. This finding is
consistent with the findings of (Luthans, 1992; Moorhead et al., 1992; Kinickiet al., 1994; Robbins, 1998;

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 235

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

Aamodt, 1999; Baker, 2005; Tickler, 2008 and Cochran-Smith et al., 2011). They revealed through their
research work that participation in decision making and supportive nature of supervisor influences the
employees’ job satisfaction.

Table 10 also showed that job content has a positive impact on the job satisfaction. This result is in tune with the
several researchers like Luthans, 1992; Ting, 1997; Aamodt, 1999; Blau, 1999; Lidenet al., 2000 and Pandey,
2007. They concluded that the task and job assigned to employees according their specialty would increases the
level of job satisfaction.

8. CONCLUSION

Higher education is playing an eminent role in creating a best picture of the developed society. It not only helps
in the formulation and development of individual’s personality but also helps in the socio-economic
development of the individuals. Furthermore, it is tool for the development and growth of the entire society.
Quality education depends upon the dedicated performance of academicians in management and engineering
institutes. Performance of academicians depends upon their satisfaction, commitment and loyalty. Satisfied
academicians can put their maximum efforts in performing their job and will become the role model of their
students.

The results of the present study revealed a significant and linear relationship amongst the dimensions of job and
job satisfaction level of academicians of management and engineering institutes in Delhi-NCR, India.
Remuneration is the factor that contributes to the highest extent of job satisfaction. Amongst all the factors,
remuneration and working conditions play an eminent role and occupied first and second position in the
contribution to develop satisfaction of employees towards their job, while supervision and job content occupied
third and fourth positions respectively for the same.

Therefore, management and engineering institutes should emphasize on the revision of remuneration structure,
favorable working conditions, participative supervision and versatile jobs according to the competency of
academicians. The above stated favorable conditions would contribute in the maintenance of best academicians
with higher satisfaction level, engagement and organizational commitment. Furthermore, this will lead high
efficiency and effectiveness of academicians in their jobs which results in the higher productivity.

REFERENCES

1. Aamodt, M.G. (1999). Applied industrial/organizational psychology (3rded.). Belmont: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.
2. Alexander,J., Bloom, J., & Nuchols, B. (1994). Nursing turnover and hospital efficiency: An
organization-level analysis. Industrial Relations, 33(4), 505-520.
3. Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and Practice 3(4), 77-86.
4. Baker, V. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and the perception of administrative support
among early career secondary choral music educators.(Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University).
5. Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, D.Q., & Walton, R.E. (1984). Managing human assets.
New York.
6. Billingsley, B. S. & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction and intent to stay in
teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 453-472.
7. Blau, G. (1994). Early career job factors influencing the professional commitment of medical
technologist. The Academy of Management Journal, 6(42), 687-695.
8. Bodur, S. (2002). Job satisfaction of health care staff employed at health centers in Turkey. Occupational
Medline, 52(6), 353-355.
9. Boone, L., & Kuntz, D. (1992). Contemporary marketing. Texas: Dryden Press.
10. Brewer, A.M. (1996). Developing commitment between managers and employees. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 11(4), 24-34.
11. Broad, L. M. (2007). Coaching a stockholder on performance improvement option, ASTD International
conference Atlanta GA, USA.
12. Cappelli, P. (1992). Examining managerial displacement. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 203.
13. Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86(1), 57-76.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 236

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

14. Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., Shiau, J. Y., & Wang, H. H. (2006). The development of an employee
satisfaction model for higher education. The TQM Magazine, 18(5), 484-500.
15. Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., McEachern, K., Piazza, P., Power, C., & Ryan, A. (2011). Teachers’
education, teaching practice, and retention: A cross-genre review of recent research. Journal of Education,
191(2), 19-31.
16. Cramer, D. (1993). Tenure, commitment, and satisfaction of college graduates in an engineering firm.
Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 791-797.
17. Davel, N., &Raval, D. (2014). A research on the factors influencing job satisfaction of MBA faculty
members in Gujarat state. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and
Management Studies, 2(2), 218-223.
18. Davel, N., &Raval, D. (2015). Review of literature on the study of job satisfaction of the teachers of
higher education institutions. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and
Management Studies, 3(5), 447-458.
19. George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational behavior, Fifth
Edition,Pearson/Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p. 78.
20. Gomez, M. L., &Balkin, D. (1992). The determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921-955.
21. Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2008). Teachers who left the teaching profession: A qualitative
understanding. The Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1-11.
22. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction, Harper and Brothers, New York, p. 47.
23. Igalens, J., &Roussel, P. (1999). A French comparative study of the relationships between compensation
work motivation and job satisfaction of exempt and non-exempt employees,224, 96-24.
24. Kayalvzhi, S., &Chokkanathan, K. (2011). A study on factors influencing the job satisfaction of lecturers
employed in self-financing arts colleges, south India. International Journal of Research in Commerce &
Management, 2(5).
25. Kinicki, A. J. &Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor subordinate relations: The
role of time-pressure, organizational commitment and locus of control. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15(1), 75-82.
26. Kothari, C. R. (1990). Research Methodology, 2nd ed., New Age international (P) Limited,Publishers,
New Delhi.
27. Labov, B. (1997). Inspiring employees the easy way for incentive, 171(10), 114-118.
28. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on
turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. Social
Science Journal, 38(2), 233-251.
29. Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher follow-up survey in
the United States for 2000 –2001. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1173–1184.
30. Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational Behavior, Irwin/McGraw job satisfaction and organizational
commitment among employees in the sultanate of Oman. PSYCH. 299 Hill, New York.
31. Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., &Munir, J. (2012). The impact of pay and promotion on job satisfaction:
Evidence from higher education institutes of Pakistan. American Journal of Economics, special issue 6-9.
32. Malik, B., & Narang, D. (2015).A study on the impact of job characteristics on key attitudes of faculty
members in professional educational institutes. European Scientific Journal, 11(16), 442-456.
33. Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. Excellence in the
Classroom, 17(1), 155-174.
34. Moorhead, G., & Griffen, R.W. (1992). Organizational behavior (3rded.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
35. Munira, R. I. S., & Rahman, R. A. (2016). Determining dimensions of job satisfaction using factor
analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 488-496.
36. Rana, S., & Agrawal, P. (2015). Reward and recognition as predictors for organizational commitment-An
empirical dissection of IT industry. Book proceedings of ICEBM, Bits, Pilani, 2, 519-525.
37. Robbins, S. P. (2003).Organizational Behavior, 9th ed., Pearson Education ltd.
38. Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., &Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis of voluntary
and involuntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 511-525.
39. Spector, P. E. (1977). Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
40. Taylor, G. S., & West, M. J. (1992). Pay comparisons and pay satisfaction among public sector
employees. Public Personnel Management, 21, 444- 454.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 237

Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2016
ISSN: 2456 – 2998 (Online)
http://ijarmet.in/
Pages: 228 – 238

41. Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public Personnel
Manage, 26(3), 313-334.
42. Unnamalai, T. (2015). A study on factors influencing job satisfaction of faculty members with special
reference to arts & science colleges in Tiruchirapalli. International Journal of Management, 6(1), 161-
170.
43. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p.99.

© www.ijarmet.in Surekha Rana and Pooja Agrawal 238