Quality Assurance in Education

Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey

Boran Toker
Article information:
To cite this document:
Boran Toker, (2011),"Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey", Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 156 - 169
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684881111125050
Downloaded on: 13 April 2015, At: 08:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5677 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Benjamin Artz, (2010),"Fringe benefits and job satisfaction", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 Iss
6 pp. 626-644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011073346
May-Chiun Lo, T. Ramayah, (2011),"Mentoring and job satisfaction in Malaysian SMEs", Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 30 Iss 4 pp. 427-440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711111126891
Vivian W.Y. Tam, S.X. Zeng, (2014),"Employee job satisfaction in engineering firms", Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 353-368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ECAM-10-2012-0098

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 353605 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


QAE
19,2
156
Received December 2009
Revised January 2011
Accepted January 2011
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)
Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2011
pp. 156-169
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684881111125050
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
Job satisfaction of academic staff:
an empirical study on Turkey
Boran Toker
Alanya Faculty of Business, Akdeniz University, Alanya, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the levels of job satisfaction among
academicians in the universities of Turkey and to examine the effects of demographics on levels of
satisfaction among them.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire-based study was conducted in 648
academicians working in the Universities of Turkey. Data were collected using the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form.
Findings The job satisfaction levels of the academicians were found to be moderately high. Social
status was ranked as the highest and compensation was ranked as the lowest of the examined items.
The results of the study indicated that professors reported a higher level of job satisfaction as
compared to instructor and research assistants. Nonetheless, among the demographic variables age,
length of service in present university and in higher education as a whole were significantly related to
job satisfaction. Marital status and gender were not significantly related to job satisfaction.
Originality/value This study shows the job satisfaction levels of academicians and the
interrelationships between demographic characteristics and satisfaction in the Universities of Turkey,
hence the results from this study can help the academicians and the university administrators to
increase the satisfaction level.
Keywords Turkey, Job satisfaction, Universities, Academic staff, Demographics
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employee job satisfaction is an important attribute that organizations desire of their
staff (Oshagbemi, 2003). Job satisfaction may be linked to performance, organizational
productivity and other issues, including labour turnover. However, dissatisfied
employees are prone to absenteeism and excessive turnover (Chen et al., 2006; Lee et al.,
1999; Melamed et al., 1995; Sekoran and Jauch, 1978; Dickter et al., 1996). Indirect costs
associated with job dissatisfaction may include training, recruiting, and learning curve
inefficiencies, as well as reduction in the client base (Brown and Mitchell, 1993). On the
contrary, employee satisfaction can improve productivity, reduce staff turnover and
enhance creativity and commitment. Consequently, job satisfaction should not be
ignored, but very few organizations seriously consider job satisfaction (Munhurrun et al.,
2009).
Although most of the researches in employee satisfaction field have been related to
profit-making industrial and service organizations, there has been a growing interest in
satisfaction of employees in higher education. The reason for this increasing interest
is the reality that higher education institutions are labour intensive and their budgets are
predominantly devoted to personnel and their effectiveness is largely dependent on their
staff. Consequently, satisfaction of the employees in higher education institutions is a
very important issue (Kusku, 2003).
 Theoretical background Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones of academic
job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of ones job values (Locke, 1968). Job
satisfaction has been found to significantly influence absenteeism, turnover, job staff
performance, and psychological distress (Chen et al., 2006; Andrisani, 1978; Spector,
1997). Lee (1988) also revealed that job dissatisfaction is among the best predictors of
turnover. Additionally, Williams (1995) found that employee benefits affect their job 157
satisfaction. Nevertheless, several antecedents of job satisfaction have been studied over
the years including compensation, opportunity for advancement, leadership style, work
environment, organizational structure and climate (Testa, 1999; Pearson and Seiler,
1983; Kline and Boyd, 1991).
Since the late 1950s, several researchers have theorized the nature of job satisfaction,
developed models that explain differences in job satisfaction, and conducted empirical
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

studies to test their models (Lacy and Sheehan, 1997). One of the better-known job
satisfaction theories was developed by Herzberg et al. (1959). Herzbergs two-factor theory
supposed that the phenomenon of job satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction is a function of
two classes of variables named motivator and hygiene factors. The satisfaction, growth or
motivator factors that are intrinsic to the job are: achievement, recognition for achievement,
responsibility, the work itself, and growth or advancement. The dissatisfaction, avoidance
or hygiene factors that are extrinsic to the job are: salary, status, security, company policy
and administration, working conditions, supervision, and interpersonal relationships
(Herzberg, 1987). Herzberg claimed that hygiene factors are not directly related to job
satisfaction, therefore, these factors will not distinctly improve performance (Hancer and
George, 2003). The motivators and hygiene factors of Herzberg et al. (1959) are similar to
the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors of other scholars. Intrinsic job satisfaction
has been defined as a persons value in terms of her/his creativity, opportunities for
resource mobilization, future development and stability derived from the job; overall,
it includes items related to job content (Kuo et al., 2008).
Academic staff of a higher education institution is a key resource and have a major
role to play in achieving the objectives of the institution (Capelleras, 2005). However, the
primary tasks of academic staff are in three areas, namely, teaching, research, and
administration and management (Oshagbemi, 2000a). The objectives of higher
education are to provide in-depth knowledge, educate students, seek academic
development, and coordinate national development demands (Johnes and Taylor, 1990).
Consequently, university teachers job satisfaction is related to the higher education
functions (Chen et al., 2006).
The research on academic employees is quite rich (Kusku, 2003). Gruneberg et al.
(1974a) examined further the question of promotion of university teachers. Gruneberg et al.
(1974b) reported on the effect of geographical factors on the job satisfaction of university
lecturers in a provincial university. Gruneberg and Startup (1978) further investigated the
degree to which the different aspects of the job were seen to be of importance, and the
degree to which each was considered as satisfying or dissatisfying in relation to overall
job satisfaction. Pearson and Seiler (1983) explored job satisfaction levels of academicians
and the differences between perceived satisfaction of faculty in professional schools and
that of faculty in other disciplines. Moses (1986) discussed studies of job satisfaction and
staff motivation as background to an interview study at an Australian university. Lacy
and Sheehan (1997) examined aspects of academicians satisfaction with their job across
 QAE the eight nations (Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico, Sweden, the UK
19,2 [. . .] and the USA). Enders and Teichler (1997) analyzed some findings and implications of
the International Survey of the Academic Profession with a special focus on the various
subgroups of academics in some European countries (i.e. Germany, The Netherlands,
Sweden and England), Japan, [. . .] and the USA. In this study, the analyses focused on the
employment and working conditions, as well as the way academics handled their various
158 professional tasks and functions. In another study, Leung et al. (2000) identified the
sources of stress, and investigated their effects on job satisfaction and psychological
distress among university teachers in Hong Kong. Especially, Oshagbemi (1997a, b,
1999a, b, 2000a, b, c, d, 2001, 2003) examined job satisfaction among university staff in the
UK. Rhodes et al. (2007) also reported on the outcomes from an initial study to explore the
job satisfaction of academicians in the light of changes in higher education in the UK.
Galaz-Fontes (2002) sought to determine overall and facet-specific job satisfaction levels
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

of faculty working at a public state Mexican university and to identify those variables that
best predicted overall job satisfaction.
Furthermore, studies have been executed to better understand the relationship between
demographic factors and academics job satisfaction. For example, Hagedorn (1996)
examined the role of female/male wage differentials in a model of job satisfaction. Tang
and Talpade (1999) also investigated the sex differences in job satisfaction of staff and
faculty in a university in the USA. Tu et al. (2005) examined the age differences of job
satisfaction between Taiwanese and Chinese higher education faculty. Hickson and
Oshagbemi (1999) investigated the effect of age on academic job satisfaction. Bilimoria et al.
(2006) examined how a sample of 248 male and female professors at a Midwestern private
research university constructed their academic job satisfaction. Okpara et al. (2005) also
examined the effects of gender on the job satisfaction of US academicians. Santhapparaj
and Alams (2005) study examined the relationships between pay, promotion, fringe
benefits, working condition, support of research, support of teaching, gender, and job
satisfaction of academic staff in private universities in Malaysia.
In the case of Turkey, Kusku (2003) explored the differences in satisfaction
dimensions between the academic and administrative staff in higher education
institutions. Koyuncu et al. (2006) investigated work experiences and satisfaction of
female and male university professors in Turkey. Furthermore, Kzltepe (2008)
examined sources of motivation and demotivation among teachers at a public university
in Istanbul. Esen (2001) analyzed the job satisfaction level of the academic staff working
at the School of Physical Education and Sports. Dorsan (2007) also determined job
satisfaction levels of the faculty members in a university. In this study, he investigated
the effects of some demographic variables on job satisfaction levels of the faculty
members. Besides, Sahal (2005) examined the relationship between the organizational
culture and job satisfaction among research assistants at one public university. On the
other hand, Caglyan (2007) investigated the effect of burnout on job satisfaction among
academicians at state and private universities.

Methodology
Participants and procedure
This study was executed in three basic stages: sampling, data collection, and data
analysis. Sampling design and sample size are important subjects to statistically
represent the population and to be able to suggest implications both for theory
 and practice. At the research time, there were 94 state and 31 foundation universities in Job satisfaction
Turkey. The survey covered eight universities selected from each of the seven of academic
geographical regions in Turkey. The questionnaire, which was designed as a web page
link was sent to all academicians in every department at these universities. The total staff
number of academicians contacted via e-mail was 7,196 generating response rates of
9 percent with a valid number of 648 university teachers consisting of instructors,
research assistants, and professors. The survey was carried out in 2008. 159
The demographic details of respondents are given in Table I. There was not much
difference in gender: 50.6 per cent of the respondents were female and 49.4 percent were
male. Concerning age of the respondents, 35.1 percent were between 31 and 40 years,
30.7 per cent were between 21 and 30 years, 23.2 percent were between 41 and 50 years,
and 8.5 percent were between 51 and 60 years. Only 2.5 percent of the respondents were
61 and over years of age. About 64.3 percent of the respondents were married,
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

n %

Gender
Female 321 50.6
Male 314 49.4
Age
21-30 198 30.7
31-40 227 35.1
41-50 150 23.2
51-60 55 8.5
61 and over 16 2.5
Marital status
Married 414 64.3
Single 190 29.5
Divorced/widowed 40 6.2
Academic title
Professor 90 13.9
Associate professor 65 10.1
Assistant professor 133 20.6
Instructor 109 16.9
Research assistant 232 35.9
Lecturer 4 0.6
Specialist 13 2.0
Length of service in present university
,1 19 3.0
1-5 180 28.4
6-10 174 27.4
11-15 114 18.0
16-20 61 9.6
21 and over 86 13.6
Length of service in higher education as a whole
,1 33 5.1
1-5 236 36.7
6-10 186 28.9
11-15 87 13.5 Table I.
16-20 52 8.1 Demographic profile
21 and over 49 7.6 of the respondents
 QAE 29.5 percent were single and 6.2 percent were divorced or widow. Distribution of the
19,2 academic titles of the respondents was as follows: 35.9 percent research assistants,
20.6 percent were assistant professors, 16.9 percent were instructors, 13.9 percent were
professors, 10.1 per cent were associate professors, and 2.6 percent were specialists and
lecturers.

160 Measures
The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was originally developed by
Weiss et al. (1967). MSQ contains 100 items in the long form and 20 items in the short
form. The short form consists of three scales: intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction,
and general satisfaction. General satisfaction is found by measuring all 20 items. The
short form MSQ was designed to measure intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction based upon
Herzberg two-factor theory (Weiss et al., 1967). The short form of the MSQ was
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

translated and adapted into Turkish by the Department of Psychology of the University
of Bosphorus. Baycan (1985) performed a validation and reliability analysis of the
Turkish version of the MSQ as part of her postgraduate thesis. Since then, it has been
used in various studies in Turkey (Ozyurt et al., 2006).
MSQ scores may be computed into one overall level of satisfaction score or combined
to form subscales measuring extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Hancer and George, 2003).
Questions are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (extremely dissatisfied)
to five (extremely satisfied). The possible score ranges from 20 to 100.
The questionnaire also included a demographic section, which asked for the
following information: academic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service in
present university, and in higher education.
Cronbachs a coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of MSQ. The
alpha coefficient for this study was 0.90, indicating high scale reliability. For the purpose
of identifying and examining the underlying dimensions of the instrument, a factor
analysis using principal component method was used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and t-tests were computed to assess differences in level of job satisfaction related to
academic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service in present university, and in
higher education. Analyses were performed using SPSS 16.

Analysis of findings
Mean scores and standard deviations of MSQ short form items are shown in Table II for
the respondents. As it is seen in Table II, social status (4.29), social service (4.28), and
ability utilization (4.24) had the highest level of satisfaction mean scores. Compensation
(2.17), supervision-technical (2.95), and supervision-human relations (3.00) had the
lowest level of satisfaction mean scores.

Factor analysis
A principal factor analysis was performed on items in order to identify dimensions of the
instrument. Bartletts test of sphericity with a value of 5051.73 ( p , 0.001) and the
calculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistics of 0.89, pointed out that data seemed
suitable for factor analysis. Taking the distribution of the Scree-plot into consideration,
principal component factors with an eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated by
the varimax analysis. About 20 items from the factor analysis resulted in four factor
groupings and explained 57 percent of the total variance. Most of the factor
 Job satisfaction
Facets Mean SD Type
of academic
1. Activity 3.55 0.956 Intrinsic staff
2. Independence 3.98 1.01 Intrinsic
3. Variety 4.07 0.888 Intrinsic
4. Social status 4.29 0.721 Intrinsic
5. Supervision (human relations) 3.00 1.24 Extrinsic 161
6. Supervision (technical) 2.95 1.22 Extrinsic
7. Moral values 3.92 0.945 Intrinsic
8. Security 4.00 0.881 Intrinsic
9. Social service 4.28 0.723 Intrinsic
10. Authority 3.78 0.867 Intrinsic
11. Ability utilization 4.24 0.795 Intrinsic
12. Company policies and practices 3.43 1.05 Extrinsic
13. Compensation 2.17 1.14 Extrinsic
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

14. Advancement 3.75 1.04 Extrinsic

15. Responsibility 3.70 1.04 Intrinsic
16. Creativity 3.88 0.980 Intrinsic
17. Working conditions 3.29 1.15 General
18. Coworkers 3.24 1.17 General Table II.
19. Recognition 3.25 1.15 Extrinsic MSQ short form means
20. Achievement 3.98 0.934 Intrinsic and standard deviations

loadings were . 0.60, indicating a good correlation between the items and the factor
grouping they represent.
First factor includes six items. Independence, variety, creativity, responsibility,
ability utilization, and activity that appeared to represent intrinsic job satisfaction were
loaded on this factor. The percentage of total variance explained by the first factor was
34.3. This factor was named nature of work.
Second factor includes five items. Supervision (technical), supervision
(human relations), recognition, and company policies and practices that appeared to
represent extrinsic job satisfaction were loaded on this factor. Coworkers, originally
general satisfaction item also loaded on second factor. The percentage of total variance
explained by the second factor was 10.7. This factor was named extrinsic job
satisfaction.
Third factor includes six items. Social service, authority, security, social status,
achievement, and moral values were loaded on this factor, representing original,
intrinsic job satisfaction items. This factor was named intrinsic job satisfaction. The
percentage of total variance explained by the third factor was 6.3.
Fourth factor includes three items. Compensation and advancement that appeared to
represent extrinsic job satisfaction were loaded on this factor. Working conditions,
originally general satisfaction item also loaded on fourth factor. The percentage of total
variance explained by the fourth factor was 5.7. This factor was named physical job
satisfaction (Table III).
Factor structure of the MSQ short form in this study was different from the factor
structure of the original MSQ short form. Two-factor structures consisting of intrinsic
and extrinsic job satisfaction was proposed in the original scale, but a four-factor
structure was found in the current study.
 QAE
Factor Percentage of variance Original
19,2 Items loading Eigenvalue explained scale

1. Factor 6.86 34.32

Independence 0.829 Intrinsic
Variety 0.795 Intrinsic
162 Creativity 0.690 Intrinsic
Responsibility 0.619 Intrinsic
Ability utilization 0.577 Intrinsic
Activity 0.402 Intrinsic
2. Factor 2.13 10.67
Supervision (technical) 0.894 Extrinsic
Supervision (human
relations) 0.877 Extrinsic
Coworkers 0.659 General
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

Recognition 0.644 Extrinsic

Company policies and
practices 0.467 Extrinsic
3. Factor 1.26 6.31
Social service 0.733 Intrinsic
Authority 0.699 Intrinsic
Security 0.688 Intrinsic
Social status 0.578 Intrinsic
Achievement 0.489 Intrinsic
Moral values 0.353 Intrinsic
4. Factor 1.14 5.72
Table III. Compensation 0.759 Extrinsic
The factor analysis Advancement 0.597 Extrinsic
results Working conditions 0.466 General

Group differences
ANOVAs and t-test were computed to determine differences in means for the overall
job satisfaction by academic title, gender, age, marital status, length of service in present
university, and length of service in higher education. ANOVA was used to examine
mean differences among the academic titles. The relationships between the level of
job satisfaction and academic titles are statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test
was used to detect the difference in means among professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, instructors, and research assistants. Table IV shows the results of
the one-way ANOVA comparison and the post hoc multiple comparison tests (Scheffe).
As can be seen in Table IV, the difference in means of job satisfaction for professors was
statistically different and higher than instructors and research assistants[1].
ANOVA test was used to analyze the overall job satisfaction for any significant
differences among the respondents age groups. The relationships between the
job satisfaction and the age groups are statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test
was used to explore the difference in means among 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 61 and
over age groups. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 61 years and over was
statistically different and higher than 21-30 and 31-40 years. Results are presented in
Table V.
The difference of means for the overall job satisfaction in terms of length of service in
present university indicates in Table VI. The relationships between the job satisfaction
 and years at university are also statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test was used Job satisfaction
to explore the difference of means among time periods of length of service in present of academic
university, i.e. less than one, one to five, six to ten, 11-15, 16-20, and 21 years and over.
The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21 years and over was statistically staff
different and higher than one to five, and six to ten years.
Table VII also indicates the difference in means for the overall job satisfaction
by length of service in higher education. The relationships between the job satisfaction 163
and years in academia are also statistically significant. A post-hoc Scheffe test was used
to explore the difference of means among time periods of length of service in higher
education, i.e. , 1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, and 21 years and
over. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21 years and over was statistically
different and higher than 1-5, and 6-10 years.
Finally, ANOVA test was used to determine differences in means for the job satisfaction
by marital status. No significant differences were found for respondents marital status.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

Besides, the effect of gender on the job satisfaction was analyzed by t-test but no significant
differences were found in job satisfaction between women and men academicians.

Conclusions and discussion

The MSQ short form was used to evaluate the academicians job satisfaction in this
study. Academicians showed a moderately high-level of overall job satisfaction with

Post hoc
analysis
(Scheffe)
Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 14.155 6 2.359 7.581 0.000 1 3.91 * *

Within groups 198.864 639 0.311 2 3.74 Table IV.
Total 213.019 645 3 3.67 One-way ANOVA and
4 3.49 * post hoc multiple
5 3.53 * comparison tests
(Scheffe) of the overall job
Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 Professor; 2 Associate professor; 3 Assistant satisfaction by academic
professor; 4 Instructor; 5 Research assistant titles

Post hoc
analysis
(Scheffe)
Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 6.228 4 1.557 4.827 0.001 1 3.58 *

Within groups 206.761 641 0.323 2 3.59 Table V.
*
Total 212.989 645 3 3.70 One-way ANOVA and
4 3.75 post hoc multiple
5 4.11 * * comparison tests
(Scheffe) of the overall job
Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 21-30, 2 31-40, 3 41-50, 4 51-60, 5 61 and satisfaction by age
over groups
 QAE a mean score of 3.64. From the mean scores, under the intrinsic factor of job satisfaction,
19,2 social status, social service, and ability utilization items had the highest level of
satisfaction mean scores. Compensation, supervision-technical, and supervision-human
relations within the extrinsic factor had the lowest level of satisfaction mean scores.
Consequently, academicians job satisfaction should come from intrinsic factors to the
work. At the same time, academicians would be expected to be extrinsically motivated
164 by the factors such as salary, fringe benefits, and administrative features.
The MSQ short form items were exposed to a principal component analysis with
varimax rotation in the current study. A four-factor structure was obtained as a result of
the factor analysis. The first factor was named nature of work. The second and the
third factors were called extrinsic job satisfaction and intrinsic job satisfaction.
The fourth factor was called physical job satisfaction. This factor structure differed from
the original two-factor structure of The MSQ short form. The literature has also reported
different factor structures for the MSQ short form. Similar results were found
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

by Hancer and George (2003) who also reported a four-factor structure. Arvey et al.
(1978) revealed different factor structures for the MSQ short form (Hancer and George,
2003). On the other hand, Schriesheim et al. (1993) revealed problematic construct
validity and they concluded that the MSQ short form subscales are controversial. In their
study, the original 13 items were unchanged and seven items changed. They revealed

Post hoc
analysis
(Scheffe)
Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 5.287 5 1.057 3.281 0.006 1 3.68 *

Table VI. Within groups 205.300 637 0.322 2 3.60 *
One-way ANOVA and Total 210.586 642 3 3.57
post hoc multiple 4 3.66
comparison tests 5 3.67
(Scheffe) of the overall job 6 3.92 * *
satisfaction by length of
service in present Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 less than one year; 2 one to five years; 3 six to ten
university years; 4 11-15 years; 5 16-20 years; 6 21 years and over

Post hoc
analysis
(Scheffe)
Sum of squares df Mean square F-ratio Sig. Mean 1 2 3 4 5

Between groups 5.756 5 1.151 3.537 0.004 1 3.69 *

Table VII. Within groups 204.406 628 0.325 2 3.61 *
One-way ANOVA and Total 210.163 633 3 3.57
post hoc multiple 4 3.62
comparison tests 5 3.58
(Scheffe) of the overall job 6 3.87 * *
satisfaction by length
of service in higher Notes: *Significance level 0.05 ( p , 0.05); 1 less than one year, 2 one to five years, 3 six to ten
education years, 4 11-15 years, 5 16-20 years, 6 21 years and over
 that working conditions and coworkers (assigned to measure general satisfaction) Job satisfaction
measure extrinsic satisfaction; security (assigned to the intrinsic subscale) measures of academic
extrinsic satisfaction; compensation, advancement and recognition (assigned to
the extrinsic subscale) measure both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction; and social staff
status measures both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction, rather than intrinsic alone. Tan
and Hawkins (2000) also found a different factor structure for the MSQ short form. They
reported that factor analyses with varimax rotation conducted on the short-form of the 165
MSQ indicated three factors, an intrinsic factor and an extrinsic factor as well as another
pertaining to satisfaction derived from participating in vocational rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, Hirschfelds (2000) study compared the original intrinsic and extrinsic
subscales of the MSQ short form to revised subscales using data from two samples. In
his study, it was revealed that the analyses from both samples indicated that revising the
intrinsic and extrinsic subscales made little difference in the results obtained. Moreover,
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

Weiss et al. (1967) reported more complex factor structures for different vocational
groups (e.g. social workers, office staff, warehouseman, and truck drivers).
The findings of the study indicate that there are significant differences between the
overall job satisfaction and academic titles. Professors have a higher level of job
satisfaction as compared to instructors and research assistants. Consequently, professors
have the highest level of job satisfaction among the all academicians. Similarly, Hickson
and Oshagbemi (1999) found that job satisfaction increase with rank. Oshagbemi (2003)
investigated that academic rank is positively and very strongly correlated with the overall
job satisfaction. Enders and Teichler (1997) determined that compared to the professorial
ranks at universities, middle-ranking and junior staff are slightly less-satisfied with their
job situation as a whole, whereby the difference is most striking between German
professors and all other academic staff members within universities.
Among the demographic variables age, length of service in present university and
length of service in higher education were significantly related to overall job satisfaction.
In age groups, 61 years and over have significantly higher mean levels of job satisfaction
than 21-40 years. Hickson and Oshagbemi (1999) also found that the effect of age
on teaching satisfaction indicates that the job satisfaction decreases with age but at
a decreasing rate. In their study, research satisfaction indicated that age affects
job satisfaction positively but at a decreasing rate. However, Tu et al. (2005) revealed that
no significant differences were found for Taiwanese and Chinese faculty in the overall job
satisfaction of age at higher education. The difference in means of job satisfaction for 21
years and over was statistically different and higher than one to ten years at present
university. In the length of service in higher education groups, 21 years and over also have
significantly higher mean levels of job satisfaction than one to ten years. Oshagbemi
(2000d) found that the overall job satisfaction of university teachers is significantly
correlated with length of service in present university but not length of service in higher
education. Oshagbemi (2003) revealed that length of service in higher education is
negatively related with the overall job satisfaction. On the other hand, in his study, gender,
age and length of service in present universities are not significantly associated directly
with the overall job satisfaction.
Marital status and gender are not significantly related to job satisfaction in the
current study. Similarly, Oshagbemi (2000c, 2003) found that gender does not affect
the job satisfaction of university teachers directly. Koyuncu et al. (2006) also reported
that no significant differences were found in job satisfaction between male and
 QAE female professors in Turkey. On the other hand, Okpara et al. (2005) found that there are
19,2 gender differences apparent in the job satisfaction levels of university teachers. Hickson
and Oshagbemi (1999) also found that women academicians tend to be slightly more
satisfied in their career than male counterparts. Santhapparaj and Alam (2005)
investigated that female academic staff are more-satisfied than their male counterpart.
Job satisfaction is an important matter that needs to be researched further in academic
166 work life since it is related to performance, productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. At the
same time, academic job satisfaction studies can help the university managements and
teachers to develop the quality of education. This study has also considerable implications
for university managements in Turkey. First of all, the results from this study can help the
academicians and the university managements to increase the satisfaction level. On the
other hand, the results of the study can guide university managements to understand
the demands of the academic staff in terms of job satisfaction, and its intrinsic and
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

extrinsic factors. Especially, among the extrinsic factors, compensation and supervision
systems are developed in the Universities of Turkey.
It would be useful that future studies should be replicated within the prescribed time
limits, considering variables such as absenteeism, intention to leave, job performance,
job stress, burnout, and managerial support.

Note
1. Data for lecturers and specialists were not evaluated because of an inadequate group size.

References
Andrisani, P. (1978), Job satisfaction among working women, Signs, Vol. 3, pp. 588-607.
Arvey, R.D., Dewhirst, D.H. and Brown, E.M. (1978), A longitudinal study of the impact of
changes in goal setting on employee satisfaction, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31,
pp. 595-608.
Baycan, A.F. (1985), Analysis of the several aspects of job satisfaction between different
occupational groups, unpublished Masters thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul.
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, Vol. 31, pp. 355-65.
Brown, A.K. and Mitchell, T. (1993), Organizational obstacles: links with financial performance,
customer satisfaction, and job satisfaction in a service environment, Human Relations,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 725-33.
Caglyan, Y. (2007), Burnout syndrome and its effects on job satisfaction (A field research on state
and Vakf Universities Academicians), unpublished Masters thesis, Kocaeli University,
Kocaeli.
Capelleras, J.L. (2005), Attitudes of academic staff towards their job and organisation:
an empirical assessment, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 11, pp. 147-66.
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, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 484-500.
Dickter, D., Roznowski, M. and Harrison, D. (1996), Temporal tempering: an event history analysis
of the process of voluntary turnovers, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 705-16.
 Dorsan, H. (2007), An analysis of the level of the job satisfaction of the academic staff working Job satisfaction
at near East University, unpublished Masters thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
of academic
Enders, J. and Teichler, U. (1997), A victim of their own success? Employment and working
conditions of academic staff in comparative perspective, Higher Education, Vol. 34, pp. 347-72. staff
Esen, N. (2001), Analyses of the job satisfaction level of the faculty members of the institutions
educating physical education teachers, unpublished Masters thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal
University, Bolu. 167
Galaz-Fontes, J.F. (2002), Job satisfaction of Mexican faculty in a public state university:
institutional reality through the lens of the professoriate, PhD thesis, The Claremont
Graduate University, Claremont, CA.
Gruneberg, M.M. and Startup, R. (1978), The job satisfaction of university teachers, Vocational
Aspect of Education, Vol. 30, p. 76.
Gruneberg, M.M., Startup, R. and Tapfield, P. (1974a), A study of university teachers satisfaction
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

with promotion procedures, Vocational Aspect of Education, Vol. 26 No. 64, pp. 53-7.
Gruneberg, M.M., Startup, R. and Tapfield, P. (1974b), The effect of geographical factors on the job
satisfaction of university teachers, Vocational Aspect of Education, Vol. 26 No. 63, pp. 25-9.
Hagedorn, L.S. (1996), Wage equity and female faculty job satisfaction: the role of wage
differentials in a job satisfaction causal model, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 37
No. 5, pp. 569-98.
Hancer, M. and George, T.R. (2003), Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: an empirical
investigation using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Synderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY.
Herzberg, F. (1987), One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 109-20.
Hickson, C. and Oshagbemi, T. (1999), The effect of age on the satisfaction of academics with
teaching and research, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 537-44.
Hirschfeld, R.C. (2000), Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference?, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 60, pp. 255-70.
Johnes, J. and Taylor, J. (1990), Performance Indicators in Higher Education: Buckingham,
The Society for Research into Higher Education Open University Press, Buckingham.
Kzltepe, Z. (2008), Motivation and demotivation of university teachers, Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 515-30.
Kline, J.B. and Boyd, J.E. (1991), Organizational structure, context, and climate: their
relationships to job satisfaction at three managerial levels, Journal of General Psychology,
Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 305-16.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), Work experience and satisfaction of male
and female professors in Turkey: signs of progress?, Equal Opportunities International,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38-47.
Kuo, H.T., Yin, T.J.C. and Li, I.C. (2008), Relationship between organizational empowerment and
job satisfaction perceived by nursing assistants at long-term care facilities, Journal of
Clinical Nursing, Vol. 17 No. 22, pp. 3059-66.
Kusku, F. (2003), Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic and
administrative staff in Turkey, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 347-56.
 QAE Lacy, F.J. and Sheehan, B.A. (1997), Job satisfaction among academic staff: an international
perspective, Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 305-22.
19,2
Lee, T. (1988), How job dissatisfaction leads to turnover, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 2, pp. 263-71.
Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., McDaniel, L. and Hill, J. (1999), The unfolding model of voluntary
turnover: a replication and extension, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 450-62.
168 Leung, T., Siu, O. and Spector, P. (2000), Faculty stressors, job satisfaction, and psychological
distress among university teachers in Hong Kong: the role of locus of control,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 121-38.
Locke, E.A. (1968), What is job satisfaction?, paper presented at the American Psychological
Association Convention, San Francisco, 30 August-3 September, available at: www.eric.ed.
gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/37/c3/e6.pdf (accessed
15 June 2009).
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J. and Green, M. (1995), Objective and subjective work monotony:
effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Moses, I. (1986), Promotion of academic staff, Higher Education, Vol. 12, pp. 35-47.
Okpara, J.O., Squillace, M. and Erondu, E.A. (2005), Gender differences and job satisfaction:
a study of university teachers in the United States, Women in Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 177-90.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997a), Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997b), Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education, Education and
Training, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 354-9.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999a), Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction,
Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 108-23.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999b), Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item
measures?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 388-403.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000a), How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching,
research and administration and management?, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 124-36.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000b), Correlates of pay satisfaction in higher education, The International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-9.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000c), Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 331-43.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000d), Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?, International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 213-26.
Oshagbemi, T. (2001), How satisfied are academics with the behaviour/supervision of their line
managers?, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 283-91.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003), Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK
universities, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1210-32.
Ozyurt, A., Hayran, O. and Sur, H. (2006), Predictors of burnout and job satisfaction among
Turkish physicians, Q J Med, Vol. 99, pp. 161-9.
Pearson, D.A. and Seiler, R.E. (1983), Environmental satisfiers in academe, Higher Education,
Vol. 12, pp. 35-47.
 Munhurrun, P.R., Naidoo, P. and Bhiwajee, S.D.L. (2009), Employee perceptions of service Job satisfaction
quality in a call centre, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 541-57.
Rhodes, C., Hollinshead, A. and Nevill, A. (2007), Changing times, changing lives: a new look at
of academic
job satisfaction in two university Schools of Education located in the English staff
West Midlands, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Sahal, E. (2005), The relationship among organizational culture and job satisfaction in academic
organizations the contentment and perception of the research employees who doctorate at 169
the Akdeniz University, unpublished Masters thesis, Akdeniz University, Antalya.
Santhapparaj, A.S. and Alam, S.S. (2005), Job satisfaction among academic staff in private
universities in Malaysia, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 72-6.
Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C. and Lankau, M.J. (1993),
Improving construct measurement in management research: comments and a
quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of
paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments, Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 385-417.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)

Sekoran, U. and Jauch, L.R. (1978), Employee orientation and job satisfaction among
professional employees in hospitals, Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 43-56.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tan, P.P. and Hawkins, W.E. (2000), The factor structure of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
and participants of vocational rehabilitation, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87, pp. 34-6.
Tang, T.L.P. and Talpade, M. (1999), Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and co-workers:
faculty and staff at a public institution, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 345-9.
Testa, M.R. (1999), Satisfaction with organizational vision, job satisfaction and service efforts: an
empirical investigation, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3
pp. 154-61.
Tu, L., 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, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 259-67.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., Engliand, B.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minneapolis Industrial Center, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN.
Williams, M.L. (1995), Antecedents of employee benefit level satisfaction: a test of a model,
Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1097-128.

About the author

Boran Toker received his PhD from Dokuz Eylul University and is an Assistant Professor in the
Alanya Faculty of Business at Akdeniz University in Alanya Turkey. Boran Toker can be
contacted at: borantoker@akdeniz.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ryuji Takahara. 2014. The Age-job Satisfaction Relationship for Japanese Public School Teachers: A
Comparison of Teachers Labor Union Members and Professional and Technical Employee Members of
Private Company Labor Unions. SANGYO EISEIGAKU ZASSHI 56, 91-101. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 08:13 13 April 2015 (PT)