Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
1
Job Satisfaction of Academic and APT Staff
Faculty of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast
1.0 Introduction
Job satisfaction is fundamentally the extent to which people like their jobs (Spector
1997), and is a subject of considerable interest to theorists and practitioners alike.
Job satisfaction is an important attitude for a number of reasons. Researchers,
managers and lay people frequently view job satisfaction as having a major impact
on how employees behave and, ultimately, on how an organisation performs (Fisher
2003; Ostroff 1992; Spector 1997).
The research project detailed in this proposal is designed primarily to investigate the
extent to which academic and APT (administrative, professional and technical) staff
of the Faculty of Business at University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) are satisfied
with their jobs. In addition, the project is designed to identify specific key issues
about which Faculty staff are most satisfied, and specific key issues about which
Faculty staff are most dissatisfied, in relation to core aspects of their jobs.
This proposal firstly explains the circumstances surrounding the need for research
into the issue of job satisfaction of staff in USC’s Faculty of Business (Section 2.0),
and then presents the specific management problem, research question and
research objectives (Section 3.0). This is followed by an examination of the
relevant academic literature which provides an overview of the current state of
knowledge about job satisfaction, with particular reference to research into the job
satisfaction of higher education employees (Section 4.0). The research design and
methodology are then discussed (Section 5.0) and the limitations to this research
project are outlined (Section 6.0). Finally, a budget and proposed schedule for
undertaking the research is presented (Section 7.0).Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
2
2.0 Background to the research problem
The University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) is the newest and smallest of the
public universities in Australia. Its first intake of 524 undergraduate students
commenced studies in February 1996, and in 2006 (as at census date March) its
total enrolment has grown to 4760 students, across a range of undergraduate and
postgraduate (both coursework and research) programs (USC 2006).
USC’s Faculty of Business offers undergraduate and postgraduate programs in a
range of business disciplines. Bachelors degree programs are offered in
accounting, financial planning, human resources management, information and
communication technology, international business, management, marketing, and
tourism. Coursework masters programs (with exit points at graduate certificate and
graduate diploma) are offered in business administration, financial planning,
international business and management. In addition, the Faculty offers research
programs at lasters and doctoral levels. In 2006 (as at census date March) the
Faculty has a total enrolment of 1717 students, of whom 33% are enrolled in
postgraduate programs (USC 2006). The Faculty has a significant international
student enrolment – 438 in 2006, of whom 122 are enrolled in on-campus programs
(USC 2006).
The Faculty of Business is in the throes of seeking international accreditation
through The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (hereinafter
referred to as AACSB International). AACSB International was established in the
United States of America in 1916, and today is arguably the leading global
accrediting agency for undergraduate, postgraduate and research degree programs
in business (AACSB International 2006). Business schools seek accreditation with
AACSB as a globally-acknowledged indication of high standards in their provision of
business education. The granting of AACSB accreditation to business schools
“confirm[s] their commitment to quality and continuous improvement through a
rigorous and comprehensive peer review” (AACSB International 2006). The Faculty
has been successful in the initial stage of having its accreditation plan approved for
implementation by AACSB International. A team of AACSB representatives will visit
the Faculty in 2007 to assess the Faculty’s progress towards achieving the goalsJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
3
outlined in its accreditation proposal. A successful application for AACSB
accreditation will be an important milestone for such a young and, by Australian
standards, small Faculty of Business, and will play an important role in the Faculty’s
continued ability to attract high calibre staff and students. This is a key issue given
the current slowing of demand for business programs at Australian universities.
As part of its AACSB accreditation plan, the Faculty of Business has undertaken to
carry out a survey of the job satisfaction of its staff. Ideally, this will enable the
Faculty to benchmark itself in terms of staff job satisfaction against those schools of
business (both Australian and international) nominated as its peers for AACSB
accreditation purposes. Benchmarking against existing AACSB-accredited
business schools is a key component of the accreditation process. Further,
regardless of the AACSB implications, employee satisfaction is an important issue
for Faculty management to investigate. The extent to which staff are satisfied with
their jobs has implications for a number of other job-related factors (Kim 2005,
p. 668). Job satisfaction has been shown to be positively correlated with job
involvement, job performance, life satisfaction, mental health, motivation,
organisational citizenship behaviours, and organisational commitment (Griffeth,
Hom & Gaertner 2000, cited in Terpstra & Honoree 2004; Judge et al. 2001; Organ
& Ryan 1995; Ostroff 1992; Spector 1997). Research has also shown job
satisfaction to be negatively correlated with absenteeism, turnover, and perceived
stress (Gormley 1993; Hackett & Guion 1985, cited in Terpstra & Honoree 2004;
Judge et al. 2001; Spector 1997). It is of particular importance, therefore, that this
research project will provide Faculty management not only with data on the extent
to which staff are (dis)satisfied with their jobs, but also with data on those specific
issues which contribute most to staff (dis)satisfaction. This data will enable Faculty
management to design and prioritise interventions to respond to these key issues.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
4
3.0 Problem definition
In undertaking this research project, the primary need of Faculty management
(Dean of the Faculty and the Faculty Executive Committee) is to comply with
AACSB protocols – that is, the Faculty has undertaken in its AACSB accreditation
plan to conduct a job satisfaction survey of Faculty staff (as discussed in
Section 2.0 above), and therefore such a survey must be carried out. Determining
the extent to which Faculty staff are satisfied with their jobs, and identifying the key
issues that contribute to the job (dis)satisfaction of Faculty staff, is an integral part of
the ongoing process of continuous improvement to which the Faculty is committed
as part of its AACSB accreditation plan, and has important implications for the
ongoing performance of the Faculty. For example, in relation to the job satisfaction
of university academic staff, Rowley (1996, p. 11) argues that:
Motivated, satisfied and committed academic staff can contribute to a strong
reputation for their institution, both nationally and internationally which, in turn,
positively influences such key activities as student recruitment and research
funding.
The specific research question that the project is designed to investigate is:
To what extent are the academic and APT staff of the Faculty of Business at
University of the Sunshine Coast satisfied with their jobs, and what are the
key issues that contribute to their (dis)satisfaction?
Specific research objectives have been identified as follows:
(1) To determine the average level of overall job satisfaction for:
(i) all staff;
(ii) academic staff; and
(iii) APT staff.
(2) To determine the average weekly hours of work and the percentage of
time staff spend on each of the core activities that comprise their job
for:
(i) academic staff: teaching, research, service, and administration
and management; andJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
5
(ii) APT staff: clerical and administrative duties, student relations,
and supervision and other management activities.
(3) To identify the key issues about which academic and APT staff are
most satisfied and the key issues about which academic and APT staff
are most dissatisfied in terms of the core activities outlined in (2)
above.
4. Literature review
The applied nature of the current research project impacts on the style of literature
review presented in this section. The literature review for this project does not focus
specifically on identifying gaps in the current research into job satisfaction, as the
literature review for a pure (or basic) research project would do. Rather, it seeks to
provide an understanding of job satisfaction, its antecedents and its outcomes,
particularly with respect to the higher education context, with a view to informing the
design of an appropriate measuring instrument to provide sufficiently
comprehensive information to meet the needs of the management of USC’s Faculty
of Business, the sponsors of this research project.
The study of job satisfaction dates from the Hawthorne studies conducted at
Western Electric during the late 1920s and 1930s (Landsberger 1979, cited in Van
Voorhis & Levinson 2006; Lawler III 1994). The Hawthorne studies “emphasized
the importance of studying the attitudes, feelings, and perceptions employees have
about their jobs” (Lawler III 1994, p. 79). Further, the studies “made the point that
employees have strong affective reactions to what happens to them at work” and
these reactions arguably “cause certain kinds of behavior, such as strikes,
absenteeism, and turnover” (Lawler III 1994, p. 79). Since the 1950s job
satisfaction has been one of the most widely studied variables in organisational
behaviour (Currivan 1999, cited in Lund 2003; Dorman & Zapf 2001; Okpara 2006;
Schneider & Vaught 1993; Spector 1997), although it must be noted that research
on this subject has been undertaken predominately in North America and Western
Europe (Kim 2005; Kűskű 2003). Thousands of articles have been written on job
satisfaction, its correlates, determinants and consequences, by theorists andJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
6
practitioners from a range of disciplines, including organisational behaviour,
psychology, education and management (Kim 2005; Van Voorhis & Levinson 2006).
In fact, Locke (1976) estimated that by 1972 a minimum of 3,350 articles had been
written on the topic of job satisfaction. Spector (1985) updated this estimate to
approximately 4,793 articles on job satisfaction by 1985. This prodigious level of
research continues to the present day. “Each year more than 300 research papers
and books are published on [job satisfaction]” (Bogler 2005, p. 19). The
proliferation of research into this concept has resulted in a multitude of definitions of
job satisfaction.
4.1 What is job satisfaction?
Job satisfaction has been defined both as a multi-faceted concept and as a global
construct (Locke 1969). “The most-used research definition of job satisfaction”
(Saari & Judge 2004, p. 396) is that developed by Locke (1976, p. 1304), which
explains job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”. Locke (1976, p. 1301) further defines
a job as “a complex interrelationship of tasks, roles, responsibilities, interactions,
incentives and rewards”. Locke’s definition views job satisfaction as possessing
both affective and cognitive elements to one’s response towards the various
aspects of one’s job. Similarly, Cranny, Smith and Stone (1992) conclude that job
satisfaction combines cognitive and affective elements, but suggest that satisfaction
comes from one’s perceptions of the differences between what one actually
receives from a job compared with what one wants to receive. On the other hand,
Lawler III (1994) sees job satisfaction as an essentially affective response toward
various aspects of one’s job, and further argues that satisfaction can result from a
job meeting one’s needs today or having the potential of meeting one’s needs in the
future. Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991, cited in Pool 1997) and Pool (1997)
regard satisfaction as an attitude maintained by employees about their jobs and
developed from their perceptions of those jobs. Despite the differences in the
various views of job satisfaction, the commonality is that each view implies that two
employees holding the exact same job can experience different levels of job
satisfaction resulting from their different individual needs and perceptions. In fact, a
key objective of investigating job satisfaction is to enhance understanding of theJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
7
complexities of these variables and the impact they have on satisfaction. “Such an
investigation may enable managers to understand how employees form the
attitudes that affect their job satisfaction” (DeBats 1982, cited in Pool 1997, p. 272).
4.2 Job satisfaction in the higher education context
“There has been a growing interest in employee satisfaction in higher education …
since the beginning of the 1990s” (Kűskű 2003, p. 347). It must be noted that many
of the studies that have investigated job satisfaction in the higher education context,
however, have limited themselves to consideration of academic staff (for example,
Iiacqua, Schumacher & Li 1995; Okpara, Squillace & Erondu 2005; Oshagbemi
1997a, 1997b, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Robson, Yarrow & Own 2005; Terpstra &
Honoree 2004). Further, the studies published in the literature tend to have
investigated job satisfaction from a predominantly theoretical, rather than an
applied, perspective – for example, using single or facet measures of general job
satisfaction, rather than seeking comprehensive information about specific issues
that contribute to the job (dis)satisfaction of higher education staff. There are, of
course, exceptions to this – such as the Australian studies by McInnis (1999) and
Winefield et al. (2002) (discussed in more detail in Section 4.3), and the UK study
by Oshagbemi (1997a, 1997b, 2000a, 2000b, 2003).
4.2.1 Personal correlates of job satisfaction – demographic
variables
Personal correlates (physical, mental and dispositional) of overall job satisfaction
arguably have been overlooked to an extent by researchers into satisfaction
(Oshagbemi 2003). Oshagbemi (2003) undertook a study of the job satisfaction of
academics in UK universities, basing his findings on data analysis of 554 usable
questionnaires returned from a sample of 1102 academics at 23 institutions across
all regions of the UK. As part of his study Oshagbemi (2003) examined several
personal correlates of job satisfaction, specifically the influence of age, gender, rank
and length of service. Oshagbemi’s (2003) findings were in part that an academic’s
rank is strongly and positively correlated with overall job satisfaction, whereas
length of service in higher education is negatively and significantly related with
overall job satisfaction. Further, Oshagbemi (2000b) found that those academic
staff who remained in the one institution, after ten years reported consistently higherJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
8
job satisfaction levels than workers who changed institutions. Oshagbemi (2003)
also found that neither gender by itself nor age has any apparent impact on the
(dis)satisfaction of university academics. Similar findings regarding age, gender
and satisfaction were reported by Iiacqua, Schumacher and Li (1995). Oshagbemi
(2003) did find, however, that within certain ranks gender influences the satisfaction
of academics. “Specifically, within the ranks of senior lecturer, reader and
professor, female academics are more satisfied with their jobs when compared with
males of comparable ranks” (Oshagbemi 2003, p. 1227).
Oshagbemi’s (2003) findings regarding a lack of association between gender and
satisfaction contrast with those of Okpara, Squillace and Erondu (2005), whose
study involved 560 respondents (response rate of 81 per cent) across 80 US
universities. Okpara, Squillace and Erondu found that there are apparent gender
differences in the job satisfaction levels of university teachers. Female academics
were found to be more satisfied with their work and coworkers; male academics, on
the other hand, were more satisfied with their pay, promotions, supervision and
overall job satisfaction (Okpara, Squillace & Erondu 2005). Similarly to
Oshagbemi‘s findings (2003), rank was found to be significant in explaining gender
differences and job satisfaction.
For this research project into job satisfaction it is apparent that information should
be collected on the following demographic variables: age, gender, position (rank),
length of service in higher education, and length of service in USC Faculty of
Business.
4.2.2 Factors which contribute to satisfaction and dissatisfaction
A number of studies have investigated the role of intrinsic and extrinsic factors and
the role played by these factors in terms of the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of
higher education employees, particularly academic staff (for example, Iiacqua,
Schumacher & Li 1995; Olsen 1993; Oshagbemi 1997c). Traditionally, the intrinsic
rewards of an academic career (that is, those pertaining to the nature of the work
itself) have been viewed as fundamental to the satisfaction of academic staff (Olsen
1993). Intrinsic rewards are viewed as being particularly significant for
professionals, such as academics, who experience “needs for personal growth and
development or for feelings of worthwhile accomplishment” (Hackman & LawlerJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
9
1971, cited in Olsen 1993, p. 454). Teaching and research related factors such as
contribution to student development, high degree of autonomy in relation to
teaching and developing courses, academic freedom, collaboration with colleagues,
research recognition and rewarding intellectual content of work have been found to
contribute to the job satisfaction of academics (Oshagbemi 1997c). Oshagbemi
(1997c) found that teaching and research related factors explain about 50 per cent
of the overall satisfaction of academics, and also account for about 30 per cent of
their dissatisfaction. Teaching and research related factors such as increases in
student numbers without commensurate increase in resources, little recognition of
teaching skills, falling quality of intake, inadequate time available for research, and
pressure to publish have been found to contribute to the job dissatisfaction of
academic staff (Oshagbemi 1997c). Other sources of dissatisfaction for academic
staff include salary, reward systems, working hours, lack of leadership from
university management, and the difficulty of balancing split responsibilities between
teaching, research and administration (Olsen 1993; Oshagbemi 1997c).
For this research project into job satisfaction, it is apparent that Information should
be collected in relation to both intrinsic (for example, job variety, recognition) and
extrinsic (for example, salary, supervision) factors that contribute to satisfaction. It
is also important that staff have the opportunity to provide information on specific
issues about which they are satisfied and those about which they are dissatisfied.
4.3 Job satisfaction of staff in Australian universities
In the past decade several research investigations examining job satisfaction as a
part of their overall objectives have been undertaken in relation to university staff in
Australia. Two of those studies are of particular relevance to this project. Firstly, a
DETYA-commissioned study by McInnis (1999) included job satisfaction as part of
its examination of the changing work roles and values of Australian university
academics. Secondly, an NTEU-sponsored study undertaken by Winefield and his
colleagues (2002) included job satisfaction as part of its overall purpose of
investigating occupational stress in Australian university staff (both academic and
APT).Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
10
4.3.1 The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities
The study by McInnis (1999) focused on investigating levels of satisfaction, work
preferences, workloads, and key aspects of teaching and research activities for
academic staff. The sample was drawn from 15 Australian universities across five
states; 2609 academics completed the questionnaire, representing a response rate
of 58.4 per cent (McInnis 1999).
The questionnaire used in this study was essentially a short version of the
instrument used in a 1993 national survey of Australian academics undertaken by
the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE), with some additional items
adapted from a survey conducted for the 1996 Dearing Inquiry into Higher
Education in the UK (McInnis 1999). Demographic data was collected on the
following worker characteristics: age, gender, type of appointment (full-time, parttime or casual) level of appointment, career stage (classified according to length of
service in higher education into ‘late’, ‘mid’ or ‘early’), institutional type (classified
according to date of establishment into ‘old’, ‘middle’ or ‘new’), and field of study
(Humanities, Engineering or Business). The questionnaire collected data on the
following issues: career interest; commitment to tasks; motives, outlooks and
satisfaction; satisfaction with salary and work benefits; promotion reward systems;
allocations of time in ‘teaching’ and ‘non teaching’ periods’; factors influencing
change in the patterns of work; changing approaches to teaching (methods and
assessment); training for teaching and thesis supervision; factors hindering
teaching; perceptions of the calibre of students; reasons for doing
research/consultancy; types of research engaged in; and factors hindering
research.
The study found the level of general job satisfaction among academics to be 51 per
cent (a drop from 67 per cent in a similar national study conducted in 1993) and,
further, that the “low overall level of job satisfaction is reflected in the low levels of
satisfaction with salary and key work conditions”, such as job security (McInnis
1999, p. xiii). In fact, McInnis (1999, p. 89) identified that the most important
determinant of overall satisfaction among academics is “contentment with salary
and other employment benefits”. Other key determinants of academics’ overall job
satisfaction concerned “the extent to which respondents saw themselves asJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
11
hindered by other commitments or by too many students or by the weight of the
teaching load” (McInnis 1999, p. 89). Interestingly, McInnis (1999) determined that
hours worked did not effect overall job satisfaction, although it did affect
stressfulness. McInnis (1999) further found that in relation to job satisfaction there
was a significant contrast between early (seven or fewer years of experience), mid
(8–20 years of experience) and late (21 or more years of experience) career
academics. Early career academics “are much more satisfied with their jobs and
less negative about future prospects” (McInnis 1999, p. 61). In fact, McInnis
determined that career stage was the major demographic influence on overall
satisfaction of academic staff. McInnis (1999, p. 90) further determined that
“gender, of itself, did not contribute to or detract from satisfaction levels”.
4.3.2 Occupational Stress in Australian Universities
The sample for this study was drawn from 17 Australian universities across five
states; 8732 academic and APT (referred to by the researchers as ‘general’) staff
completed the questionnaire, representing a response rate of 25 per cent (Winefield
et al. 2002). Casual staff were not included in the study (Winefield et al. 2002).
The questionnaire used 17 survey measures to investigate the following issues:
psychological strain; job satisfaction; organisational commitment; work pressure;
work-home conflict; job insecurity; job involvement; job autonomy; procedural
fairness; trust in head of department; trust in senior management; negative
affectivity and personality; stress related symptoms and medical conditions;
satisfaction with resources (rated by academics only); and perceptions of the
academic work environment (rated by academics only) (Winefield et al. 2002). The
questionnaire used a scale developed by Warr, Cook and Wall in 1979 to assess
satisfaction towards 15 work features, including autonomy, hours, level of
responsibility, management and physical conditions (Winefield et al. 2002).
Responses were coded on a 7-point attitude rating scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied,
7 = extremely satisfied). Winefield and his colleagues added a 16th item that was
not part of the original scale to assess global job satisfaction, specifically: “Now,
taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?”
(Winefield 2002, p. 23). The internal reliability (Cronbach alpha) coefficient for the
job satisfaction scale was .88, indicating that the scale has acceptable reliabilityJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
12
(Winefield et al. 2002). Refer to Appendix 2 for a full list of items included in this
scale.
In addition to job satisfaction, Winefield and his colleagues (2002) also assessed
academics’ satisfaction with resources, as well as their perceptions of the academic
work environment. A 5-item scale measured academics’ satisfaction with the
current level of resources across the areas of research funding, teaching resources,
support services, and professional development, as well as a general category of
resources required to perform their job well (Winefield et al. 2002). An 11-item
scale was developed based on Phase 1 of the study (22 focus groups) to assess
academics’ perceptions of their current teaching and research environments
(Winefield et al. 2002). This scale addressed such factors as: class sizes, hours
spent teaching, number of courses taught, quality of teaching, quality of research,
pressure to attract funding, and pressure to do research (Winefield et al. 2002).
Refer to Appendix 2 for a full list of items in these scales.
In part, Winefield et al.’s (2002) study found that the job satisfaction of academic
staff was low in comparison to other occupational groups, but average for APT staff.
Seventy-four per cent of APT staff expressed overall job satisfaction compared with
only 61 per cent of academic staff (Winefield et al. 2002). Interestingly, summing
average scores across the 15 facet items for both academic and APT staff indicated
that 58 per cent of staff were satisfied with their jobs, whereas the global
satisfaction item reported a somewhat higher level at 68 per cent (Winefield et al.
2002). Unfortunately, Winefield et al. (2002) offer no explanation for this difference,
nor is it indicated whether the difference is significant. It was found that academics
tend to be dissatisfied with five aspects of their job: chance of promotion, hours of
work, industrial relations, rate of pay, and university management (Winefield et al.
2002). Contrastingly, APT staff tend to be dissatisfied with only one aspect of their
job, namely chance of promotion (Winefield et al. 2002). Winefield et al. (2002)
further found that female staff exhibited a significantly greater job satisfaction than
male staff. This contrasts with the findings about the lack of an association between
gender by itself and job satisfaction in McInnis’s 1999 study of academics, and
others such as Oshagbemi’s study of UK academics (2003).Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
13
5.0 Research design and methodology
5.1 Research design
The design of a research project involves organising the research activity so that
the aims of the research are most likely to be achieved (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe &
Lowe 2002; Zikmund 2003). The research design provides a strategy for
conversion of the conceptual research problem into a practical research project
(Ghauri & Gronhaug 2005).
5.1.1 Purpose of the study and type of investigation
According to Zikmund (2003) business research can be categorised on the basis of
function or purpose into three types: exploratory, descriptive and causal. The
nature of the research problem and the degree of uncertainty associated with it
determines the appropriateness of each type of business research to a particular
project (Ghauri & Gronhaug 2005; Zikmund 2003). Exploratory research is “initial
research conducted to clarify and define the nature of a problem” (Zikmund 2003,
p. 54), and is therefore appropriate where there is little known about the research
problem (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001; Ghauri & Gronhaug 2005). As
discussed in the literature review in Section 4.0, a prodigious amount of research
has already been undertaken aimed at enhancing understanding of the concept of
job satisfaction, its antecedents and outcomes. This research has led to the
development of several well-credentialed instruments for measuring satisfaction.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to classify the current project as exploratory
research. On the other hand, causal research, also referred to as ‘hypothesis
testing’ (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001), is “conducted to identify cause-andeffect relationships among variables” (Zikmund 2003, p. 56). Research
investigating how one or more variables bring about change in another variable is
causal research (Cooper & Schindler 2001). It is similarly inappropriate to classify
the current project as causal research – identifying factors that may cause or predict
job satisfaction is beyond the project’s scope. Further, the satisfaction literature
indicates that, at most, studies into this complex concept are able to determine
correlates, not causes, of, job satisfaction.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
14
Descriptive research “involves either identifying the characteristics of an observed
phenomenon or exploring possible correlations among two or more phenomena”
(Leedy & Ormrod 2001, p. 191). The description of characteristics of a population,
the estimation of population properties, and the identification of associations
between variables are examples of descriptive research (Cooper & Schindler 2001).
The proposed investigation into job satisfaction of staff in USC’s Faculty of Business
is essentially a descriptive research study, utilising a clarification approach as the
type of investigation (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001). As stated by Leedy and
Ormrod (2001, p. 210) “the researcher who conducts a descriptive study wants to
determine the nature of how things are” (original authors’ emphasis). The principal
goal of this research project is to gain a clearer understanding of the job satisfaction
attitudes of Faculty staff by: firstly, determining the extent to which academic and
APT staff (both as separate groups and jointly) are satisfied with their jobs; and,
secondly, identifying what academic and APT staff perceive as the key job-related
issues about which they are most satisfied and those issues about which they are
most dissatisfied.
5.1.2 Time horizon
This research project will collect data on a cross-sectional (or one-shot) basis,
rather than on a longitudinal basis. This means that data will be gathered from
Faculty staff just once, which is generally deemed sufficient for a descriptive
research study (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001). This will allow the project
findings to describe the extent of job satisfaction of Faculty staff at a particular point
in time, as well as what the key (dis)satisfaction issues are at that time.
5.1.3 Unit of analysis
The unit of analysis can be described as “the level of aggregation of the data
collected during the subsequent data analysis stage” (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran
2001, p. 119). The fundamental unit of analysis for this project is the individual –
the project will gather data from each individual staff member in the Faculty of
Business and will consider each member’s response as a distinct source of data
(Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001). Some data analysis will also be done at theJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
15
group level – for example, comparing the satisfaction levels of academic and APT
staff.
5.2 Research methodology
5.2.1 Choice of measuring instrument
This research project investigates attitudes of staff in USC’s Faculty of Business,
specifically in relation to their job satisfaction. Many techniques have been
developed to measure attitudes (Zikmund 2003), with the use of rating scales being
“perhaps the most common practice in business research” (Zikmund 2003, p. 310).
In fact, Wealleans (2003, p. 59) suggests that “(t)he employee survey is the most
obvious and most common way of measuring the opinions and attitudes of people
within any organization”. For the current research project, it is proposed to use a
self-reporting questionnaire to collect job satisfaction information incorporating both
quantitative items (using rating scales for responses) and open-ended items. This
data-collection method is deemed appropriate for a descriptive research study
(Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001).
5.2.2 Questionnaire design
Because of the amount of research conducted into job satisfaction a large number
of instruments have already been developed to measure job satisfaction. Three of
the most widely used internationally are the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire,
the Job Descriptive Index and the Job Satisfaction Survey. A summary of the
characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of these three questionnaires is
presented as part of Table 5.1 (see next page). Also summarised in Table 5.1 are
the questionnaires used in two major studies in Australian universities (McInnis
1999 and Winefield et al. 2002), previously discussed in Section 4.3. The
advantages and disadvantages of the various instruments have been carefully
considered by the researcher. As a result, the researcher has decided to propose
to Faculty management that the job satisfaction scale used by Winefield et al.
(2002) form the basis of the satisfaction questionnaire to be used for this project.
This scale was used successfully in Winefield et al.’s study (2002) to measure the
job satisfaction of both academic and APT staff, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .88. No matter what the subject of the research, it is important that theJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
16
Table 5.1: Job satisfaction questionnaires: MSQ, JDI & JSS – summary of characteristics, advantages and
disadvantages
Instrument Developed by
whom & when
Key characteristics Advantages Disadvantages
Minnesota
Satisfaction
Questionnaire
(MSQ)
Weiss, Dawis,
England &
Lofquist in 1967
• 100-item standard form & 20-item short form
• Measures satisfaction dimensionally
• Incorporates 5 facets: work, supervisor, pay,
promotion, & co-workers across 3 scales: :
intrinsic, extrinsic & general
• Uses 5-point rating scale for responses
(5 = ‘very satisfied’ to 1 = ‘very dissatisfied’)
• Copyrighted – permission to use must be
obtained from University of Minnesota
• Baseline & descriptive
statistics available
• Diversity of jobs in
samples used
subsequent to
development of
measure
• Generally sound
validity & reliability
measures, particularly
for general satisfaction
• Length, particularly of
standard form
• Many researchers only
use general scale
because of reservations
about intrinsic &
extrinsic scales
• Composite rather than
global measure of
‘general’ satisfaction
• Copyright – time to
obtain permission to
use; may be a fee
involved
• Does not identify
specific issues
influencing job
(dis)satisfaction
• Does not allow
comparison with other
major studies of staff
satisfaction in Australian
universities
Job Descriptive
Index (JDI)
Smith, Kendall &
Hulin in 1969;
subsequently
revised in 1975 &
1985
• Measures satisfaction dimensionally
• Incorporates 5 facets: pay, promotions,
supervision, co-workers’ behaviour, & nature
of work
• Uses ‘Yes’, ‘No’ & ‘?’ for responses
• Copyrighted – permission to use must be
• Probably the best facet
measure of satisfaction
• Excellent psychometric
properties
• Does not provide a
measure of general
satisfaction
• Length
• Complexity of scoring
• Copyright – time toJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
17
Instrument Developed by
whom & when
Key characteristics Advantages Disadvantages
obtained from Bowling Green State University obtain permission to
use; may be a fee
involved
• Does not identify
specific issues
influencing job
(dis)satisfaction
• Does not allow
comparison with other
major studies of staff
satisfaction in Australian
universities
Job Satisfaction
Survey (JSS)
Spector in 1985 • Developed to measure job satisfaction in
human service, public & non-profit
organisations, but also applicable to other
types of organisations
• Measures satisfaction dimensionally
• Incorporates 9 facets: pay, promotion,
supervision, benefits, contingent rewards,
operating procedures, coworkers, nature of
work, and communication
• Uses 6-point rating scale for responses (1 =
‘disagree very much’ to 6 = ‘agree very
much’)
• Copyrighted – permission to use free of
charge granted for non-commercial research
& educational purposes provided results
shared with Spector for updating of norms
• Type of organisation
for which developed
applicable to USC
Faculty of Business
• Potentially freely
available for this
study’s purpose
• Length (36 items)
• Composite rather than
global measure of
‘general’ satisfaction
• Cronbach alpha
coefficients for two
facets relatively low (.60
& .62)
• Results must be shared
with Spector for free
access to instrument
• Does not identify
specific issues
influencing job
(dis)satisfaction
• Does not allow
comparison with other
major studies of staff
satisfaction in Australian
universitiesJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
18
Instrument Developed by
whom & when
Key characteristics Advantages Disadvantages
Questionnaire
developed for
The Work Roles
of Academics in
Australian
Universities
McInnis in 1999
using items from
1993 CSHE
survey & 1996
UK Dearing
Inquiry
• Items on job satisfaction are part of longer
questionnaire
• Investigates job satisfaction in terms of: work
preferences; level of commitment; work
motives, satisfaction & outlooks; salary, work
benefits & career prospects; reward systems
• Measures satisfaction both dimensionally &
overall
• Assumed to be subject to copyright
• Allows comparison with
their results for
academic staff at
Australian universities
• Developed for
administration to
academic staff only
• Further investigation
needed regarding
availability for use in
study
• No information
published regarding
validity or reliability
Questionnaire
used in
Occupational
Stress in
Australian
Universities: A
National Survey
2002
Warr, Cook &
Wall in 1979,
with overall
satisfaction item
added by
Winefield et al.
• Measures satisfaction both dimensionally &
overall
• Assesses satisfaction towards 15 work
features: fellow workers; autonomy; job
variety; level of responsibility; supervision;
physical conditions; opportunity to use
abilities; job security; hours of work;
recognition; opportunity to contribute; pay;
industrial relations; promotion; management
• Responses coded on a 7-point attitude rating
scale (1 = ‘extremely dissatisfied’,
7 = ‘extremely satisfied’)
• Assumed to be subject to copyright
• Able to be
administered to both
academic & APT staff
• Allows comparison with
their results for
academic & APT staff
at Australian
universities
• Cronbach alpha
coefficient of .88,
indicating that the
scale has acceptable
reliability
• Further investigation
needed regarding
availability for use in
study
• Does not identify
specific issues
influencing job
(dis)satisfaction
Source: Adapted from McInnis (1999); Price (1997); Smith, Kendall & Hulin (1969); Spector (1985; 2004a; 2004b); Winefield et al. (2002)Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
19
researcher uses a reliable instrument, that is, one that is “free from error and
therefore yield[s] consistent results” (Zikmund 2003, p. 300). Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient, which measures the inter-item consistency reliability of the
variables being investigated (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001) is the “most
commonly used test for construct reliability” (McMurray, Pace & Scott 2004, p. 174)
Generally, “reliabilities … over 0.8 are good” (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001,
p. 324).
This investigation into the job satisfaction of staff in USC’s Faculty of Business is an
applied, rather than a basic, research project – that is, the research is being
undertaken “with the intention of applying the results to solving specific problems
currently being experienced” (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001, p. 12) in the
Faculty of Business. Therefore, it is insufficient for achieving the aims of the
research to obtain only measures of general elements of, or overall, job satisfaction.
A number of research studies (for example, Olsen, Maple & Stage 1995;
Oshagbemi 1997a, 1997b, 2000a, 2000b, 2003) have looked at the job satisfaction
of university staff, and have used instruments that have been specifically adapted to
address job satisfaction issues relevant to higher education employees.
Consequently, it is proposed to also include in the proposed research instrument
items designed to measure specific issues related to job satisfaction of Faculty staff.
Refer below and Appendix 3 for details of these items.
Thus, to collect job satisfaction data from USC Faculty of Business staff it is
proposed to use a self-report questionnaire that incorporates the following:
• the 16 quantitative items used as the job satisfaction scale in Winefield
et al.’s study (2002), as detailed in Appendix 2, (Items 1–15 & 17);
• as the above scale asks staff about their satisfaction with “the way the
university is managed”, it is proposed to include an additional item
asking staff about their satisfaction with “the way the Faculty is
managed” (Item 16) as informal discussions with staff have indicated
that these attitudes are likely to involve considerable variance
(Item 16);Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
20
• one quantitative item (adapted from items used by McInnis 1999 and
Oshagbemi 1997a, 2000a) designed to collect data on an estimated
breakdown of how staff spend their time on average on the core
activities that comprise their job – specifically, for academic staff:
teaching, research, community service, and administration and
management; and for administrative staff: clerical and administrative
duties, student relations, and supervision and other management
(Item 18);
• eight open-ended items (adapted from items used by McInnis 1999;
Oshagbemi 1997a, 2000a; and Winefield et al. 2002) designed to
collect data on the five key issues that contribute to the job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction of academic staff in relation to the core activities
noted above (Items 19–26);
• six open-ended items (adapted from items used by Oshagbemi 1997a,
2000a) designed to collect data on the five key issues that contribute to
the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of administrative staff in relation
to the core activities noted above (Items 27 – 32);
• one open-ended item designed to collect data on any additional
comments, suggestions or ideas that staff feel are important in relation
to their job satisfaction (Item 33); and
• five quantitative items designed to collect demographic data – gender,
age, position, number of years of service at USC, and number of years
of service in higher education (Items 34– 38). These demographic
variables will together provide a profile of respondents. In particular,
age, position, and length of service have been shown to be associated
with overall satisfaction of staff, including those working for higher
education institutions (McInnis 1999; Oshagbemi 2003).
Appendix 3 contains the draft items proposed for inclusion in the job satisfaction
instrument. It should be noted that final approval of the measuring instrument for
this research project rests with Faculty management (Dean and Executive
Committee).Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
21
5.2.3 Pretesting of questionnaire
It is intended to pretest the design and wording of the questionnaire to ensure that
respondents understand the terminology that is used and are able to navigate their
way successfully through the questions. The researcher will arrange for a number
of colleagues in other Faculties of the University to complete the questionnaire and
to discuss any difficulties that arise.
5.3 Data collection
5.3.1 Sampling issues
The term ‘population’ describes “the entire category of people who share a common
set of characteristics and comprise the universe of subjects who relate to the
research question being examined” (McMurray, Pace & Scott 2004, p. 80). For this
job satisfaction project, the target population comprises all members of academic
and general staff of USC’s Faculty of Business who satisfy the following criterion:
employed on a full-time, part-time or sessional contract of at least twelve weeks as
at the date on which the questionnaire is distributed to staff for completion. It
should be noted that sessional and short-term employees do not fall within the
scope of the AACSB accreditation proposal, which is the foundation of this research
project. However, staff in these categories play an important role in both the
teaching and administrative activities of the Faculty and, as such, the extent to
which they are satisfied with their jobs should not be overlooked by Faculty
management.
It is often not feasible to study a whole population because of the large size of the
population, and time and cost restraints on the researcher. However, this is not the
case for the current project. The nature of the research question and objectives is
such that it is proposed to collect job satisfaction data from each member of the
target population. It is anticipated that this will involve collection of data from a
population of approximately 85 individual staff members, comprised of
approximately 40 full-time academic staff, 18 full-time APT staff, and
20-25 sessional/part-time/casual staff. (It must be noted that, at any particular point
in time, these numbers vary because of vacancies in existing jobs and the filling of
newly-created positions.) Each included member of Faculty staff will receive viaJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
22
USC’s internal mail system a hard-copy of the questionnaire for completion. Return
of the completed questionnaire will also be via internal mail to the researcher.
5.3.2 Confidentiality of information
It is important for the viability of the research project that each of the included staff
members completes and returns the questionnaire (Wealleans 2003). One key
issue in terms of the response rate is that staff need to believe that the project is
worthwhile, that “real action will be taken on the basis of the survey results”
(Wealleans 2003, p. 65). Faculty management need to ensure that their
commitment to the project is effectively communicated to staff in advance of the
questionnaire being distributed. Confidentiality of respondent information is another
key issue relevant to the response rate, not least because the research project is
being conducted by an internal researcher. The issue of confidentiality can
potentially have a major impact on whether staff answer the survey questions
honestly, if at all (Wealleans 2003).
Every precaution must be taken to ensure the anonymity of respondents (Cavana,
Delahaye & Sekaran 2001; Wealleans 2003). Names of staff members will not be
collected as part of the questionnaire. The majority of questionnaire items use a
rating scale that respondents only need to tick which means respondents cannot be
identified by their hand-writing. For qualitative items, respondents will have the
option of word-processing rather than writing their responses and including this as
an extra sheet with their completed questionnaire. The issue of demographic
information included in the questionnaire is crucial in terms of respondent
anonymity. Given the small size of the population for the research it would
conceivably be possible to identify certain members of staff on the basis of, for
example, gender, age and / or position. Staff must be reassured that only the
researcher will have access to the data in its non-aggregated form, and the
researcher must make an undertaking to staff to carry out the research in an
absolutely ethical and confidential manner. The researcher must ensure that no
one reading the final research report is able to link any information provided to a
particular staff member (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran 2001). Whilst staff will be
encouraged to provide all the demographic information requested on theJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
23
questionnaire, the option will be given to not provide any demographic information
that they do not feel comfortable providing. For the return of the questionnaires a
‘double envelope’ method similar to that used for USC staff elections is suggested.
Using this method, respondents will be provided with two envelopes in which to
return their questionnaire. The outer envelope is pre-addressed to the researcher
and has space for the respondent’s name and signature – this enables follow-up of
staff who do not return their questionnaire by the due date. The inner envelope is
completely blank and contains the questionnaire. When returned, the two
envelopes are separated, with the inner envelope not being opened until a later
stage. Completed questionnaires must be kept in a secure location until such time
as they are confidentially destroyed by the researcher.
5.4 Data analysis
Data from the questionnaires will be entered onto a spreadsheet using the
Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 14.0). SPSS
will be used to produce a variety of tables and graphs for presentation of the data,
and to undertake a number of statistical analysis techniques, including (but not
necessarily limited to) those discussed below:
• Cronbach alpha coefficients will be calculated to verify the inter-item
consistency of Items 1–16, which together constitute a multi-dimensional
measurement of job satisfaction
• Mean scores for Items 1–16 will be calculated for a number of categories
of staff, including: all staff, academic staff, and APT staff. This analysis
will contribute to achieving the first research objective of determining the
extent of job satisfaction for all staff, and for the sub-categories of
academic staff and APT staff. Mean satisfaction scores will also be
calculated for categories of staff according to the demographic variables
(gender, age, and so on), though only where this will not lead to
individual members of staff being able to be identified in the published
results.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
24
• As previously discussed, Items 1–16 measure job satisfaction as a multidimensional construct. The proposed questionnaire also measures job
satisfaction as a universal concept, via Item 17. Mean scores for this
item will be calculated for the following categories: all staff, academic
staff and APT staff. This analysis will contribute to achieving the first
research objective of determining the extent of job satisfaction for all
staff, and for the sub-categories of academic staff and APT staff. Mean
satisfaction scores will also be calculated for categories of staff
according to the demographic variables (gender, age, and so on),
though only where this will not lead to individual members of staff being
able to be identified in the published results.
• For Item 18 mean scores of time spent on each of the core activities will
be calculated for academic staff and for APT staff. This will achieve the
second research objective of determining average weekly hours of work
for staff and the percentage of their time that staff spend on each of the
core activities that comprise their job.
• For Items 19–32 qualitative analysis will be undertaken, seeking to
identify common themes in staff responses to these questions.
Identification of key themes will provide Faculty management with a
greater understanding of what specific key issues contribute to the job
(dis)satisfaction attitudes of academic and APT staff, and in particular
will enable Faculty management to prioritise response to those issues
contributing significantly to staff dissatisfaction. This will achieve the
third research objective of identifying the key issues that contribute to
staff satisfaction and to staff dissatisfaction in terms of the core activities
associated with their job.
• Item 33 is a ‘catch all’ item which seeks to give respondents an
opportunity to raise any issues important to their (dis)satisfaction with
their job that have not otherwise been dealt with by the questionnaire.
Staff responses to this item may further inform and extend the findings in
relation to earlier items. For Item 33 qualitative analysis will beJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
25
undertaken, seeking to identify common themes in staff responses to
this question.
6. Limitations of the research
It is recognised that the research project has the following limitations::
• The small size of the population being used for this study means that full
analysis of the results in terms of the various sub-groups of staff may not
be possible where it potentially would result in the identification of
individual staff members in the results.
• Most studies of job satisfaction rely on self-report questionnaires, as will
this study. However, “many researchers are skeptical about results that
come from questionnaires that ask people to report about themselves
and their jobs” (Spector 1994, p. 385). Using employees as the only
source of data “leaves many alternative explanations for observed
correlations other than that the intended traits are related” (Spector
1994, p. 390).
• Eskildsen, Kristensen and Westlund (2004, p. 122) suggest that the
contradictory findings reported in the literature about both the
antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction result from most of
the studies on job satisfaction having been “limited to specific countries
or even specific organisations”. This research project is no different in
terms of being limited to a specific organisation (even more so, one
Faculty of a university), and therefore will not contribute in any way to a
resolution of these contradictory findings.
7. Project budget and timeline
7.1 Budget
Because the project is being conducted as part of the researcher’s Master of
Business Administration studies, the survey administration, data analysis and
writing of the final report will be undertaken by the researcher using existing
facilities at no additional cost to the Faculty of Business.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
26
The principal costs will be related to printing and stationery. The following
calculations are based on a survey population of 100 staff members (the population
currently is approximately 85 staff members – budgeting for 100 allows for
movement in this number, plus a few extras to cover questionnaires misplaced by
respondents, etc.):
• questionnaire (1 x folded A3 sheet) –
100 questionnaires @ 16c per sheet = $16.00
• return envelope (outer) –
100 envelopes @ 3c per envelope = $3.00
• address label for outer return envelope –
100 labels @ 4c per label = $4.00
• return envelope (inner) –
100 envelopes @ 3c per envelope = $3.00
7.2 Timeline
It is noted that the timing of this research project is subject to consultation with the
Faculty management. The table below provides an approximate time schedule for
key project tasks:
Table 7.1: Proposed project timeline
Task Commence Finish
Questionnaire design – to be finalised in consultation
with the Faculty’s AACSB Coordinator & subject to
approval by the Faculty Dean & Executive
Committee
mid October
2006
end November
2006
Pretesting of questionnaire mid November
2006
end November
2006
Printing of questionnaires & return envelopes (outer
& inner)
week 1,
December 2006
week 2,
December 2006
Distribution of the questionnaire late February
2007
late February
2007
Completion of the questionnaire by Faculty staff late February
2007
mid March 2007
Data entry early March 2007 end March 2007
Data analysis early April 2007 end May 2007
Writing of report (findings & conclusions) mid April 2007 end June 2007Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
27
Appendix 1: The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities –
Issues Addressed by Questionnaire
I have an interest in both teaching and research
I have a much stronger career interest in research
than teaching
I have a much stronger career interest in teaching
than research
Strength of career interest
Rate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements.
(5-point scale ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’)
I have a much stronger career interest in
administration than teaching and research
Research activity
Postgraduate thesis supervision
Publication of research findings
Undergraduate teaching
Pastoral care of students
Presentation of research at conferences
Postgraduate coursework teaching
Community service
Strength of commitment to tasks Rate the
strength of your commitment to the various
tasks in which you may be involved as an
academic.
(5-point scale ‘strongly committed’ to ‘not
committed’)
Administrative work
I am more motivated by intrinsic interests in my work
than by material rewards
I subordinate most aspects of my life for my work
My work commitments leave me very little time to
myself
My job is a source of considerable stress
My overall satisfaction with my job has improved over
the last 5 years
I am actively seeking a change of job at the moment
This is not a good time for any young person to aspire
to an academic career in my discipline
If I had the choice again I would choose to be an
academic
Work motives, satisfaction and outlooks
Rate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements.
(5-point scale ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’)
Generally speaking I am satisfied with my job
Your academic salary
Security of your job
Study leave policy
Conference attendance and travel policy
Salary, work benefits and career prospects
Rate your level of satisfaction with your salary,
benefits and working conditions.
(5-point scale ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very
dissatisfied’ Opportunity to pursue your own academic interests
Research/scholarly activity
Ability to attract external funds
Administrative/leadership skills
Contribution to committees
Effectiveness as a teacher
Community service
Reward systems
Consider the promotions policy of your
institution. Indicate for each of the following
whether it is currently rewarded and whether
you believe it should be rewarded.
Length of service
Teaching classes
Teaching related activity
Thesis supervision
Research/scholarship
Administration
Consultancy
Community service
Allocations of time
Consider a typical week during the teaching
period / non-teaching period last semester.
Estimate the number of hours you spent on
each of the listed activities.
Other major activityJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
28
Teaching classes
Teaching related activities
Thesis supervision
Research/scholarship
Administration
Consultancy
Public/community service
Change in the patterns of work
Have there been substantial changes in your
overall work hours in teaching periods over
the last five years?
(‘yes’ / ‘no’)
Other major activities
Committee work
Liaising with administrators
Providing academic support for students
Seeking funds to support academic work
Developing course materials for new technologies
Doing your own word processing
Providing pastoral care for students
Marketing and promotional activities
Keeping up to date in your field
Supervising casual and junior staff
Designing and scanning in online materials
Industry liaison
Your own professional development
International exchange programs
Factors influencing change in the patterns of
work
Which of the following activities have had an
impact on changes in your working hours in
the last five years?
(‘increased hours’ / ‘decreased hours’ / ‘no
change’ / ‘not applicable’)
Off-shore academic work
Distance-based learning approaches
Computer-assisted course delivery
Multimedia technology
Collaborative learning strategies
Change in teaching methods
Over the past five years, have you changed
your teaching methods with respect to the
following?
(‘yes’ / ‘no’) Problem-based learning
Your own initiative/decision
Availability of technology
University/Department policy
Student demand/feedback
Increased student numbers
Resource constraints/lack of funding
Pressure from colleagues
Availability of extra resources/funding
Shortage of space
Factors influencing change in teaching
methods
What prompted you to make changes in your
teaching methods?
Other
Depth of knowledge and understanding of the subject
Ability to think critically and to reason
Written communication skills
Problem solving skills
Verbal communication skills
Ability to memorise
What is and what should be assessed
Indicate on the following list the aspects of
student performance you currently assess and
those you think should be assessed.
Diagnosis of students’ strengths and weaknesses
Training in teaching methods and supervision Teaching methods
At the start of your career / In the last two
years did you receive / have you received
training in …?
(‘yes’ / ‘no’)
Thesis supervisionJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
29
Quality of training Teaching methods
If you completed a course of training at the
start of your career / in the last two years, how
helpful did you find it?
(‘very helpful’ / ‘fairly helpful’ / ‘not helpful’)
Thesis supervision
Having to teach subjects outside your area of
expertise
Current research commitments
Lack of up-to-date equipment/technology
Too many students
Factors hindering teaching
To what extent, if at all, is your teaching
hindered by the following?
(5-point scale ‘not hindered’ to ‘greatly
hindered’)
Too wide a range of students’ abilities
Perceptions of the calibre of students Undergraduate students
Rate the calibre of students you are currently
teaching, compared with those you were
teaching five years ago.
(‘better’ / ‘about the same’ / ‘worse’ / ‘not
applicable’)
Postgraduate students
Because you enjoy it, it motivates you and it interests
you
To get publications
To increase your department’s income or profile
To increase your chance of security, tenure or
promotion
Research motives
Indicate which of the following are reasons for
you conducting your research.
(‘major reason’ / ‘minor reason’ / ‘not
applicable’)
To give inputs and stimulus to your teaching
Advancing theory
Applied professional, business or industry related
Directed to inform teaching
Types of research
Nominate which of the following types of
research you have been engaged in over the
last five years. Policy oriented
Teaching load
Difficulty obtaining funding
Lack of support from your department for your
research interests
Factors hindering research
To what extent, if at all, is your teaching
hindered by the following?
(5-point scale ‘not hindered’ to ‘greatly
hindered’) Inadequate research equipment
Source: Adapted from McInnis (1999)Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
30
Appendix 2: Occupational Stress in Australian Universities: A National
Survey 2002 – Select Questionnaire Items
(i) Job Satisfaction
Your fellow workers
The freedom to choose your own method
of working
The amount of variety in your job
The amount of responsibility you are
given
Your immediate boss
The physical work conditions
Your opportunity to use your abilities
Your job security
Your hours of work
The recognition you get for good work
The attention paid to suggestions you
make
Your rate of pay
Industrial relations between managers
and workers
Your chance of promotion
How satisfied or dissatisfied do you feel with
…?
(7-point scale; 1 = ‘extremely dissatisfied’,
7 = ‘extremely satisfied’)
The way the university is managed
How do you feel about your job as a whole?
(7-point scale; 1 = ‘extremely dissatisfied’,
7 = ‘extremely satisfied’)
Source: Adapted from Winefield et al. (2002)Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
31
(ii) Satisfaction with Resources (rated by academics only)
Research funding
Teaching resources
Funding for support services
Professional development
How satisfied or dissatisfied do you feel with
…?
(5-point scale; 1 = ‘very dissatisfied’, 5 = ‘very
satisfied’)
Resources required to do your job well
Source: Adapted from Winefield et al. (2002)
(iii) Perceptions of the academic work environment (rated by
academics only)
Class sizes too big
Increased teaching hours
Too many courses
Decline in quality of my teaching
Decline in quality of students’ work
More students with language problems
New teaching modalities increase workload
Pressure to do research
Pressure to attract external research funding
No time for quality research
Extent of (dis)agreement with 11 statements
covering teaching related, research related,
and administration related issues
(5-point scale; 1 = ‘strongly disagree, 5 =
‘strongly agree’)
Too much administration
Source: Adapted from Winefield et al. (2002)Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
32
Appendix 3: Draft Items for Inclusion in Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
Item Type of response
How satisfied or dissatisfied do you feel with each of the
following?
1. Your fellow workers
2. The freedom to choose your own method of working
3. The amount of variety in your job
4. The amount of responsibility you are given
5 Your immediate boss
6. The physical work conditions
7. The opportunity to use your abilities
8. Your job security
9. Your hours of work
10. The recognition you get for good work
11. The attention paid to suggestions you make
12. Your rate of pay
13. Industrial relations between managers and workers
14. Your chance of promotion
15. The way the university is managed
16. The way the Faculty is managed
7-point response scale as
follows:
1 = extremely dissatisfied
2 = moderately dissatisfied
3 = slightly dissatisfied
4 = neither dissatisfied nor
satisfied
5 = slightly satisfied
6 = moderately satisfied
7 = extremely satisfied
17. How do you feel about your job as a whole? 7-point response scale as
above
18. Estimate the average number of hours per week that
you spend on each of the following core activities:
• For academic staff (questionnaire will ask for separate
responses for ‘teaching periods’ and ‘non teaching
periods’): teaching and teaching related activities;
research and research related activities; service
activities; administration and management
• For APT staff: clerical and administrative activities;
student relations activities; supervision and other
management
Respondents to enter
number of hours against
relevant activities
19. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1) the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your teaching and
teaching related activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
20. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your teaching and
teaching related activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written responseJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
33
Item Type of response
21. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your research and
research related activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
22. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your research and
research related activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
23. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your service activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
24. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your service activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
25. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your administration and
management activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
26. For academic staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your administration
and management activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
27. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your clerical and
administrative activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
28. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your clerical and
administrative activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
29. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least importance (1), the five key issues that contribute
most to your job satisfaction in relation to your student
relations activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written responseJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
34
Item Type of response
30. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least importance (1), the five key issues that contribute
most to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your student
relations activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
31. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job satisfaction in relation to your supervision and
other management activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
32. For administrative staff:
Please indicate in descending order from most important (5)
to least important (1), the five key issues that contribute most
to your job dissatisfaction in relation to your supervision and
other management activities.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
33. If you have any other comments, suggestions or ideas
that you feel are important in relation to your satisfaction with
your job, please write them below.
Open-ended question
requiring written response
34. Gender 1 = male
2 = female
35. Age Respondent to enter age in
years
36. Position Respondent to indicate
level of position currently
held on precoded list
37. Length of service in higher education (to nearest whole
year)
Respondent to enter LSHE
in years
38. Length of service in USC Faculty of Business (to nearest
whole year)
Respondent to enter LSFB
in yearsJob Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
35
List of References
AACSB International (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business)
2006, Member Services: Why Join AACSB?, accessed 25 May 2006,
.
Bogler, R 2005, ‘Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab Teachers in Israel’, The Journal of
Social Psychology, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 19-33.
Brush, DH, Moch, MK and Pooyan, A 1987, ‘Individual demographic differences and
job satisfaction’, Journal of Occupational Behavior, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 139-156.
Cavana, RY, Delahaye, BL and Sekaran, U 2001, Applied Business Research:
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd,
Milton, Qld.
Comm, CL and Mathaisel, DFX 2000, ‘Assessing Employee Satisfaction in Service
Firms: An Example in Higher Education’, Journal of Business and Economic
Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43-53.
Cooper, DR and Schindler, PS 1988, Business Research Methods, 6th edn, Irwin /
McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Cranny, CJ, Smith PC and Stone, EF 1992, Job satisfaction: How people feel about
their jobs and how it affects their performance, Lexington, New York.
Dorman, C and Zapf, D 2001, ‘Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities’,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 482-504.
Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R and Lowe, A 2002, Management research: An
introduction, Sage Publications, London.
Eskildsen, JK, Kristensen, K and Westlund, AH 2004, ‘Work motivation and job
satisfaction in the Nordic countries’, Employee Relations, vol. 26, no. 2,
pp. 122-136.
Ghauri, P and Gronhaug, K 2005, Research Methods in Business Studies: A
Practical Guide, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, London.
Gormley DK 2003, ‘Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction in Nurse Faculty: A MetaAnalysis’, Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 174-178.
Iiacqua, JA, Schumacher, P & Li, HC 1995, ‘Factors contributing to job satisfaction
in higher education’, Education, vol. 116, no. 1, accessed 28 June 2006,
ProQuest document ID: 9062652, .Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
36
Judge, TA, Parker, S, Colbert, AE, Heller, D & Ilies, R 2001, ‘Job satisfaction: A
cross-cultural review’, in N Anderson, DS Ones, HK Sinangil & C
Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology, Sage, London, vol. 2, pp. 25-52.
Kim, S 2005, ‘Gender Differences in the Job Satisfaction of Public Employees: A
Study of Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea’, Sex Roles, vol. 52,
nos, 9/10, pp. 667-681.
Kűskű, F 2003, ‘Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic
and administrative staff in Turkey’, Career Development International,
vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 347-358.
Lawler III, EE 1994, Motivation in work organizations, Brooks/Cole Publishing,
Monterey, CA.
Leedy, PD and Ormrod, JE 2001, Practical Research: Planning and Design,
7th edn, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Locke, EA 1969, ‘What is Job Satisfaction?’, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, vol. 4, pp. 309-336.
Locke, EA 1976, ‘The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction’, in MD Dunnette
(ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally,
Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.
Lund DB 2003, ‘Organizational culture and job satisfaction’, The Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 219-236.
McInnis, C 1996, ‘Change and diversity in the work patterns of Australian
academics’, Higher Education Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 105-117.
McInnis, C 1999, The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities,
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Higher Education
Division), Canberra.
McMurray, AJ, Pace, RW and Scott, D 2004, Research: a commonsense approach,
Thomson Social Science Press, Southbank, Vic.
Okpara, JO 2006, ‘The Relationship of Personal Characteristics and Job
Satisfaction: A Study of Nigerian Managers in the Oil Industry’, The Journal
of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 49-58.
Okpara, JO, Squillace, M and Erondu, EA 2005, ‘Gender differences and job
satisfaction: a study of university teachers in the United States’, Women in
Management Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 177-190.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
37
Olsen, D 1993, ‘Work Satisfaction and Stress in the First and Third Year of
Academic Appointment’, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 64, no. 4,
pp. 453-471
Olsen, D, Maple, SA and Stage, FK 1995, ‘Women and Minority Faculty Job
Satisfaction: Professional Role Interests, Professional Satisfactions, and
Institutional Fit’, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 267-293.
Organ, DW and Ryan, K 1995, ‘A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour’, Personnel
Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 775-803.
Oshagbemi, T 1997a, ‘Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 27-39.
Oshagbemi, T 1997b, ‘The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organizational
members’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 12, no. 8, accessed 28
June 2006, ProQuest document ID: 117541946,
.
Oshagbemi, T 1997c, ‘Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education’,
Education & Training, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 354-359.
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. 124-136.
Oshagbemi, T 2000b, ‘Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?’,
International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 213-226.
Oshagbemi, T 2003, ‘Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence
from UK universities’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 30,
no. 12, pp. 1210-1232.
Ostroff, C 1992, ‘The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and
Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 963-974.
Pool SW 1997, ‘The Relationship of Job Satisfaction With Substitutes of
Leadership, Leadership Behavior, and Work Motivation’, The Journal of
Psychology, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 271-283.
Price, JL 1997, ‘Handbook of organizational measurement’, International Journal of
Manpower, vol. 18, no. 4/5/6, pp. 305-558.
Robson, A, Yarrow, D and Owen, J 2005, ‘Does quality drive employee satisfaction
in the UK learning sector?’, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 465-484.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
38
Rowley, J 1996, ‘Motivation and Academic Staff in Higher Education, Quality
Assurance in Education, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 11-16.
Saari, LM and Judge, TA 2004, ‘Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction’, Human
Resource Management, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 395-407.
Schneider, DS and Vaught, BC 1993, ‘A comparison of job satisfaction between
public and private sector managers’, Public Administration Quarterly,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 68-83.
Smith, PC, Kendall, LM and Hulin, CL 1985, The Revised Job Descriptive Index,
Rand McNally, Chicago.
Spector, PE 1985, ‘Measurement of Human Service Job Satisfaction: Development
of the Job Satisfaction Survey’, American Journal of Community Psychology,
vol. 13, pp. 693-712.
Spector, PE 1994, ‘Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on
the use of a controversial method’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 385-392.
Spector, PE 1997, Job satisfaction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Spector, PE 2004a, ‘Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS ©’, accessed 6 October 2005,
.
Spector, PE 2004b, ‘JSS Sharing of Results’, accessed 6 October 2005,
.
Terpstra, DE and Honoree, AL 2004, ‘Job Satisfaction and Pay Satisfaction Levels
of University Faculty by Discipline Type and by Geographic Region’,
Education, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 528-539.
USC (University of the Sunshine Coast) 2006, About the University: The University
at a Glance – Facts and Figures, accessed 28 July 2006,
.
Van Voorhis, RW and Levinson, EM 2006, ‘Job Satisfaction Among School
Psychologists: A Meta-Analysis’, School Psychology Quarterly, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 77-90.
Wealleans, D 2003, The People Measurement Manual: Measuring Attitudes,
Behaviours and Beliefs in Your Organization, Gower Publishing Limited,
Aldershot.
Winefield, AH, Gillespie, N, Stough, C, Dua, J and Hapuararchchi, J 2002,
Occupational Stress in Australian Universities: A National Survey 2002,
National Tertiary Education Union, Canberra.Job Satisfaction Research Project – Research Proposal
39
Zikmund, WG 2003, Business Research Methods, 7th edn, Thomson SouthWestern, Mason, OH.