A STUDY OF LECTURERS’ JOB SATISFACTION IN SELECTED HARBIN CITY UNIVERSITIES, CHINA.doc

8/11/2019 A STUDY OF LECTURERS JOB SATISFACTION IN SELECTED HARBIN CITY UNIVERSITIES, CHINA.doc

1/25

ijcrb.webs.comINTERDISCIPLINARY J OURNAL O F C ONTEMPORARY R ESEARCH IN BUSINESS

M AY2011

C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ 17

A STUDY OF LECTURERS JOB SATISFACTION INSELECTED HARBIN CITY UNIVERSITIES, CHINA

Jiang NaFaculty of Education, Department of Educational Management, Planning & Policy,

University of Malaya.

Ismail Huss in Am!a"Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Management, Planning & Policy,


Ja# $ Hassan A#%l&ai'aFaculty of Education, Department of Educational Management, Planning & Policy,


A#s"$a("T is study e!amines t e level of "o# satisfaction among lecturers in t e field of teac ing $ ineseas a foreign language %T$F ' in t(o universities in )ar#in city, $ ina. T e instrument used for t e researc met odology (as a modified version of t e *o# Descriptive +nde! %*D+'

uestionnaire (it items on demograp ic factors, t e (or- itself, co (or-ers, supervision /supervisor, income, opportunities for promotion and overall "o# satisfaction. T e data (asanaly0ed using t e tatistical Pac-age for t e ocial ciences % P ' version 12.3 t rougfre uency counts, T test and 4nalysis of 5ariance %46 54'. T e result of t e studyindicates t at T$F lecturers are satisfied (it t e (or- itself, t eir co (or-ers andsupervision, #ut are not satisfied (it t e income and opportunities for promotion. T ere is nosignificant difference #et(een male and female T$F lecturers (it respect to satisfaction onfive "o# factors. T$F lecturers (it P D degrees ave ig er "o# satisfaction t an lecturers (ita #ac elor8s and master8s degree. ecturers (it more t an 13 years of service feel more satisfiedin t e aspects of supervision, income and opportunities for promotion t an lecturers (it lesst an 13 years e!perience. Permanent lecturers e!press ig er satisfaction in terms of income andopportunities for promotion t an non permanent lecturers.) *+%$ s 9 ecturer, *o# atisfaction, )ar#in $ity, $ ina

-. In"$% u("i%necturers8 "o# satisfaction is one of t e top issues in every sc ool (orld(ide and it is a

serious topic for de#ate since long time ago. +t is an argumentative topic t at s ould #e argued #ecause lecturer satisfaction and employment are not only contri#uting to t e motivation of lecturers and t eir improvement, #ut also to student learning and development %Perie, :a-er &:leac , 1;;7'. +n $ ina, alt oug a lot of previous researc as #een conducted on lecturers< "o#satisfaction, studies of lecturers in t e field of teac ing $ inese as a Foreign anguage %T$F 'are muc neglected. 4s a popular profession in recent years, T$F is attracting t e attention #otof people interested in t e profession and "o# see-ers more =t an ever #efore. To provide somereference for future candidates and perfect/effective T$F lecturer administration, t ere s ould

#e an increment in lecturers8 activity. T is study e!amines T$F lecturers8 "o# satisfaction int(o universities in )ar#in city, $ ina.


2/25C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ 1>


M AY2011

Education, to some e!tent, is closely related to t e development of t e country and itseconomy. 6ational development can afford t e investment in education. For e!ample, currentlyin $ ina


3/25C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ 1;


M AY2011

4 study #y @alde %1;>2' s o(s t at t e repetitive nature of t e tas- (as t e factor ( icmost dissatisfied lecturers ( ile payment and security are factors of satisfaction. Most T$Flecturers8 pay Ais ig er t an t e traditional ones #ecause more $ inese language lecturers areteac ing on an ourly #asis. @ ile due to limited classes, lecturers often do not ave ig

income. +n addition, t e proceeds for T$F lecturers< come in eac semester according to t eir teac ing ours. T e more lessons lecturers are (illing to teac , t e more income t ey earn. 4s(e -no(, T$F lecturers ave more opportunities to go a#road to teac , #y t e nature of t eir (or-. T is e!perience a#road could not only s arpen t eir a#ility to (or-, #ut also enric es t eir life. )o(ever, not all could ave t ese opportunities #ecause of t e selection policy and ot er factors.

0. O#' ("i11. T e level of "o# satisfaction among T$F lecturers in )ar#in city, $ ina.?. To ( at e!tent e!trinsic factors suc as co (or-ers, supervision and income contri#ute to

"o# satisfaction among T$F lecturers.. To ( at e!tent intrinsic factors suc as t e (or- itself and opportunities for promotion

contri#ute to "o# satisfaction among T$F lecturers.. T e influence of t e demograp ic profile suc as se!, education level, years of service

and nature of appointment on t e level of "o# satisfaction among T$F lecturers.

2. R s a$(& 3u s"i%n1. )o( do T$F lecturers perceive t e c aracteristics of t e "o#G?. )o( do T$F lecturers perceive t eir co (or-ersG

. )o( do T$F lecturers perceive t e supervisionG

. @ at is t e attitude regarding incomeG

. @ at is t e comment regarding opportunities for promotionG2. 4re t ere significant differences in "o# satisfaction #et(een male and female, permanent

and nonpermanent T$F lecturersG Do lecturers ( o differ in education level or years of service ave o#viously diverse comments regarding "o# factorsG

4. Limi"a"i%ns %5 "& S"u *T e limitations of t e study are as follo(s9

H T e study (as conducted only in t(o universities in )ar#in city, $ ina. T us t e findingsand conclusions cannot #e entirely generali0ed to ot er areas of t e country.

H :ecause of t e large proportion of female and young lecturers in t e field of teac ing$ inese as a foreign language and in t e present sample, t e vie(s of t e male lecturersmay not #e reflected fairly and e!actly.

H T e t(o universities are #ot pu#lic institutions, t us t e results of t e study cannot #ecompletely e!tended to private universities, sc ools and institutions.

6. D 5ini"i%n %5 T $msH *o# satisfaction9 *o# satisfaction is a sense of ac ievement, appiness and en"oyment felt

#y a person ( en e fulfils is needs during is (or-ing life. oc-e %1;72' defines "o#satisfaction as Ipleasure or positive emotional state resulting from t e appraisal of one8s

"o# or "o# e!periencesJ.


4/25C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ ?3


M AY2011

H ecturers8 "o# satisfaction9 T e degree of sense of satisfaction e!perienced #y lecturers.H Teac ing $ inese as a foreign language %T$F '9 ecturers ( ose mot er language is

Mandarin $ inese use $ inese to teac foreign students $ inese language.

7. Li" $a"u$ R 1i +

Definition of Job Satisfaction*o# satisfaction as #een defined #y researc ers in many (ays. oc-e %1;72' defines it as a pleasure or a positive emotional state resulting from t e valuation of t e "o# or (or- e!perience.)e also states t at "o# satisfaction is Aa function of t e perceived relations ip #et(een ( at one(ants in a (or- and ( at t ey perceive as an offeringA % oc-e 1;2;, p. 12'.7.1 Content Theories

T ere are several t eories related to "o# satisfaction. $amp#ell %1;73' classifies t em intot(o categories, ( ic are content t eories and process t eories. $ontent t eories, are t eidentification and e!planation of t e needs, values or e!pectations of t e persons acting on "o#satisfaction. $ontent t eories also e!plain t e specific factors t at motivate uman #e aviour andmaintain t e c anging needs of uman #eings. Maslo(




M AY2011

From )er0#erg8s perspective, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are caused #y different factors.T at is, (e cannot consider "o# satisfaction as t e opposite of "o# dissatisfaction. imilarly, "o#satisfaction is not t e opposite of "o# dissatisfaction. +n fact, from t e standpoint of )er0#erg, t eopposite of satisfaction is Ano satisfactionA, and t e opposite of dissatisfaction is AnodissatisfactionA. 4ccording to )er0#erg, ( en people feel satisfied (it (or-, t e intrinsic

factors usually come into play, suc as ac ievement, recognition and gro(t . @ en t ey are notsatisfied (it (or-, t ey tend to see- e!trinsic factors, suc as salary, company policies and(or-ing conditions. )er0#erg states t at employees (ill not #e satisfied ( en t e ygienefactors are not met.

7.1.# $lderfers %&'Theory

+n content t eory, t ere is anot er t eory t at is also #ased on individual needs. T at ist e t eory of EKB t at (as proposed #y 4lderfer in 1;2;. imilar to t e t eory of ierarc y of needs, 4lderfer8s EBK t eory classifies uman needs at different levels. T e difference is t at4lderfer classifies individual needs at only t ree levels9 t e needs of e!istence, relations ip

needs and gro(t needs.7.1.( McClellands Three NeedsTheory

T is t eory (as formulated to elp understand t e needs of people, t eir motivation and #e aviour. Mc$lelland classifies t em into t ree needs9 t e need for ac ievement, t e need for po(er and t e need for affiliation. T e need for ac ievement means t at people (ant success and

ave t e feeling of accomplis ment. +f t ey (ere given difficult and c allenging tas-s, t ey (illma-e every effort to complete t e tas- in t e ope of success. T is (ill #e a sort of motivation toma-e people (or- arder and #e more active. 4ccording to Mc$lelland, t e need for po(er s o(s t e desire of people to control ot ers. rgani0ationally, t is need is s o(n as t e desire of ot er leaders or leaders of t e organi0ation. +f people ave t is need, #ut do not ave t eopportunity to #e a leader, t ey (ill #e disappointed and lose t eir passion. T e (ay to motivatet ese people and meet t eir re uirements is to lead t em or put t em in office oriented positions.

7.1.) $da*s %+,ityTheory

4dams %1;2 ' proposed t e e uity t eory of "o# satisfaction ( ic emp asi0es t eimportance of reac ing t e #alance #et(een employee contri#utions and results. +f t e inputs of (or-ers are ig er t an t e results, t ey (ill #e discouraged and demotivated. +n general, t einputs include t e effort, time, tolerance, loyalty, ent usiasm, a#ility, confidence in superiors etc.Typically t ey include safety outputs of employment, salary, self esteem, sense of accomplis ment, praise, reputation and so on. Eac employee is (illing to #e treated fairly. T ey(ant to get t e results as (ell as e ual pay. :ut t e num#er of outputs and inputs cannot #ecalculated e!actly, so t e t eory identifies t e manager


6/25C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ ??


M AY2011

.


7/25C OPY R IGHT 2011 Institute of Inter isci!"in#r$ ?


M AY2011

-.2 Co!wor/ersMaslo( %1; ' identifies social need, ( ic means interaction (it people, as t e first

top level re uirement. C ale ue %1;> ' states t at t ere is no dou#t t at t e relations ip (itone8s colleagues is an important factor in "o# satisfaction.

-.# 0nco*e 6aylor %1;2>' argues t at t e encouragement of income as seen as one of t e mostimportant determinants of "o# satisfaction in most investigations. Krune#erg %1;7;' also supportst e argument t at pay is an important element in "o# satisfaction. :ut t ere are also some studies( ic s o( little relations ip #et(een income and "o# satisfaction. :utler %1;21' points out t att e level of satisfaction is no different #et(een groups of different salaries. @ernimont andFit0patric- %1;7?' assert t e varieties of t e sym#olic values of money, #ut confirmed t at t eydiffer according to individual merits.

-.( S, er isionoc-e %1;7 ' notes t e importance of supervisors in t e contri#ution of su#ordinate "o#

satisfaction and satisfaction. T ey can promote or #e em#arrassing to t e ac ievement of value(or- of su#ordinates. Miss a(- %1;71' states t at all levels of people loo- for somet ing moret an uman relations s-ills in t eir supervisors. 4 u"a %1;72' identifies t at if employees are(or-ing under t e supervision of an incompetent, inefficient and unresponsive superior, t eir dissatisfaction (ill increase.

-.) 3ro*otion4ccording to )er0#erg %1; ;', promotional opportunities #enefit increased "o#

satisfaction. 5an Mannen and Cat0 %1;72' also report a positive correlation #et(een t eopportunities for promotion and "o# satisfaction in general. )o(ever, :lum %1; ?' suggests t atopportunities for promotion are more important for s-illed (or-ers compared to uns-illed(or-ers.

9. S"u i s %n "& R la"i%ns&i: # "+ n P $s%nal Va$ia#l s an J%# Sa"is5a("i%n4.1 %d,cational 5e el

ome studies s o( a relations ip #et(een educational level and "o# satisfaction.)o(ever, t e relations ip can #e positive or negative depending on unspecified moderator varia#les % rivastva et al., 1;7 '. Bao %1;73' and $arrell and El#ert %1;7 ' found t at t ere is asignificant relations ip #et(een "o# satisfaction and educational level of lecturers and t is isconsidered more as a significant determinant of "o# satisfaction.

4.2 6ears of Ser iceLe00i and ester %?333' reported t at t e years of service is not a predictor of "o#

satisfaction. o(t er et al. %1;> ' indicate t at increases in "o# satisfaction as t e e!perience of years increases. imilarly, )odge %1;77' s o(s t at t e level of "o# satisfaction for lecturersincreases as t e years of employment in t e institutions increase in num#er. Mean( ile, Clec-er and oadman %1;;7' found t at "o# satisfaction decreased (it t e num#er of years t e person

as #een in t e profession.




M AY2011

9.0 S"u i s %n L ("u$ $ J%# Sa"is5a("i%n:ased on studies of "o# satisfaction, some researc as #een conducted relating to

lecturers< "o# satisfaction. )er0#erg, Maunser and nyderman %1; ;' argue t at recognition andac ievement are t e most important factors t at influence a lecturer8s "o# satisfaction. T iss o(s t at if sc ool leaders give positive respect and appreciate t e value of lecturers, lecturers

(ill #e at a ig level of satisfaction.

Batsoy %1;7 ' asserts t at t e satisfaction of t e "o# lecturers are doing is related to t eorgani0ation of sc ools. T e more #ureaucratic and centrali0ed t e sc ool is, t e less t esatisfaction of lecturers. Mis-el, DeFrain and @ilco! %1;>3' suggest t at lecturers (it t e #elief t at t ey ave t e a#ility to do t e "o# and ave received positive response for t eir ard (or- (ill e!perience satisfaction of a ig level. 4t t e same time, 6ic olson %1;>3' identifies t reefactors t at most affect lecturer satisfaction (it employment, ( ic are leaders ip, decisionma-ing and t e communication process. )e #elieves t at if lecturers are given g moreopportunities to participate in t e process of decision ma-ing in sc ools and communicateopenly a#out sc ool goals, t at (ill lead to an increase in t e satisfaction of lecturers (it (or-.

Most lecturers feel more satisfaction ( en t ey are assigned to (or- as a team. ome researcs o(s t at lecturers in sc ools ave developed a strong sense of professionalism as a result of t e opportunity to (or- toget er on important professional concerns %Karner, 1;; ipsit0,1;> '. T e sense of #elonging to a team (it real responsi#ilities t at gives mem#ers c allengesand reasons to #e proud of t emselves and t e team, t us en ances "o# satisfaction %$urtis,1;; '.

ergiovanni %1;;?' reports t at lecturer satisfaction relates to "o# involvement and performance. Participation ma-es lecturers feel t e need for and value of commitment. )e alsoemp asi0es t e importance of recognition, empo(erment and t e sense of "o# opportunities in

"o# satisfaction. @ iteford %1;;3' identifies some indicators of lecturer satisfaction (itemployment as #eing t e sense of efficacy, a positive relations ip (it colleagues, satisfactory(or-ing conditions, t e director8s




M AY2011

-;. Sam:ling D signT ere are eleven pu#lic universities in t e city of )ar#in, and only a part of t em ave

special colleges of international education. T e sample consists of lecturers ( o teac $ ineseas a foreign language in t(o selected universities9 )ar#in Engineering University %)EU' and)ar#in +nstitute of Tec nology %)+T'. T ese t(o universities ave provided $ inese language

courses for foreign students for a period of time, and ave already esta#lis ed t eir o(norgani0ational structure and curriculum system. :ecause of t e limited num#er of lecturers int is field in eac university, 3 uestionnaires (ere distri#uted to )EU and 23 uestionnaires to)+T. T irty eig t uestionnaires (ere received from )EU and 2 uestionnaires (ere o#tainedfrom )+T. T e response rate (as ; O. T(o uestionnaires from )+T (ere re"ected as t ey (ereincomplete. T us, t e final num#er of analy0ed uestionnaires (as ;?.

--. R s a$(& Ins"$um n"+n t is study, t e researc instrument in t e form of a uestionnaire (as t e main tool for

collecting data. T e uestionnaire ad t ree sections, ection +, ++ and +++. ection + comprises t edemograp ic profile of respondents. ection ++ comprises t e *o# Descriptive +nde! %*D+'.

ection +++ comprises five multiple c oice uestions to e!plore respondents8 overall attitudesa#out t e "o#, and t ree voluntary reply su#"ect uestions to #enefit from a deeper understandingof t e respondents.

ection +T ere (ere ; items in t is section (it t e purpose of gat ering demograp ic data of t e

respondents. T ese data (ill not only provide respondents8 #ac-ground information, #ut (ill also #e useful for data analysis. T e items related to se!, age, marital status, education level, years of service, nature of t e appointment, teac ing su#"ect, class level and mont ly salary.

ection +++n t is section, t e *o# Descriptive +nde! is used ( ic (as developed #y mit , Cendall

and )ulin %1;2;'. T e *D+ is one of t e most (idely used instruments for measuring "o#satisfaction %DeMeuse, 1;> edec-, 1;>7'. +t as #een translated into many different languagesincluding Mandarin $ inese. T e *D+ comprises five dimensions of "o# satisfaction9 t e (or- itself, co (or-ers, supervision, income and opportunities for promotion. T ese dimensions aremeasured #y (ords or p rases and are easy to read. +n t is study, a fe( items (ere added to t einstrument to ma-e it more suita#le for lecturers teac ing $ inese as a foreign language and for t e present (or-ing conditions.

Camaruddin %1;; ' made furt er c anges to t e *D+ introducing a five point i-ert typescale. Bespondents indicate t e num#er ( ic #est represents t eir feelings for eac item.

6um#ers 1 to represent strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree,respectively. +n measuring "o# satisfaction, t e more satisfied t e respondents (ere perceived to

#e, t e ig er (as t e score, (it 1 #eing t e minimum score and #eing t e ma!imum score.T e scores for t e positive and negative items are as in Ta#le 1 and ?.




M AY2011

Ta#le 19 cale Beference of Positive and 6egative +temsScale reference Positive item egative item

trongly Disagree 1Disagree ?

6eutral

4gree ?trongly 4gree 1

T ere are a total of 71 items used for measuring lecturers8 satisfaction and dissatisfaction (it t e teac ing profession in t is section. T ey are divided into five parts9

4. @or- +tself ?1 items:. $o (or-ers 1 items$. upervision / upervisor 1; itemsD. +ncome > itemsE. pportunities for Promotion ; items

+t consists of #ot positive and negative items as seen in Ta#le ?9

Ta#le ?9 Positive and 6egative +tems on *o# atisfaction Dimensions Positive item numbers Negative item numbers@or- itself 1, , , 2, 7, >, 13, 1?,

1 , 12, 17, 1>, 1;, ?1?, , ;, 11, 1 , 1 , ?3

$o (or-ers 1, , , 2, 7, >, 11, 1 ?, , ;, 13, 1?, 1upervision / upervisor 1, , , 2, 7, >, ;, 1 ,

1 , 12, 17, 1>, 1;?, , 13, 11, 1?, 1 ,

+ncome ?, 2, 7, > 1, , , pportunities 1, , , 2, 7 ?, , >, ;

ection +++T is section comprises five multiple c oice uestions to e!plore respondents8 overall

attitudes a#out t e "o#, suc as ( et er t ey are satisfied (it t eir "o#, ( et er t ey li-eteac ing foreign students and cross culture (or-, and ( et er t ey (ill t ey stay in t e(or-place until t ey retire. T ere are also t ree voluntary reply su#"ect uestions, (it t e

purpose of aving a deeper understanding from t e respondents.

-/. Da"a Anal*sis4ll data collected from t e participants (as coded and analy0ed using t e tatisticalPac-age for t e ocial cience % P ' version 12.3. +n t is researc , t e follo(ing data analysistec ni ues (ere used9i' Descriptive statistics including fre uency, percent, mean and standard deviation. T ey (ereused to analy0e t e demograp ic profile in ection + of t e uestionnaire "o# factors in ection++, "o# factors comparison and c oices related to overall "o# satisfaction in ection +++.ii' T test and 4nalysis of 5ariance %46 54' (as applied to analy0e t e significance of t e


11/25

demograp ic profile (it respect to "o# factors.

-0. Fin ings

1#.1 De*o ra hic 3rofile of the 'es ondents4 total of 133 copies of t e uestionnaire (ere distri#uted to t e t(o universities. T irty

eig t uestionnaires and 2 uestionnaires (ere received respectively from t e t(o of t em. T etotal num#er of uestionnaires received (as ; (it t e response rate of ; O. :ecause of t eincompleteness of ? uestionnaires, t e final num#er of analy0ed uestionnaires (as ;?. :esides,from t e ;? respondents, a ma"ority of t em are female lecturers, (it 7? female respondents or 7>. percent. T e sample of male respondents consists of ?3 male lecturers ( ic ma-es only?1.7O of t e total num#er. 6early alf % >.;O' of t e respondents are #et(een t e age of ?2 to

3 years old, ( ic is t e ma"ority group of t e sample. Follo(ing t is is t e age group from ?3to ? ( ic comprises ?1 respondents or ??.>O of t e total sample. T e 1 years age groupconsists of 13 respondents or 13.;O of t e total. T e ot er age groups account for . O, 2. O,?.?O, and . O, respectively.

+n terms of marital status, 1 respondents or .2O are single compared to 7 or 1.1Oof t e respondents ( o are married. Four respondents or . O are in ot er situations suc as

#eing divorced. n t e issue of education level, more t an alf % 1 out of ;? or . O' of t erespondents are graduates, respondents or 7O old a Master8s degree ( ile only 7respondents are P D olders, accounting for 7.2O of t e total. To some e!tent, t is data s o(s asituation in ( ic most of t e lecturers in t e field of teac ing $ inese as a foreign language

old a #ac elor8s or master8s degree, (it only a fe( of t em olding a P D.

4s for years of service, t e ma"ority of t e respondents ave no more t an yearse!perience, accounting for 2;. O. T is indicates t e fact t at at least in t ese t(o universitiesmost of t e T$F lecturers are young and (it out too muc teac ing e!perience. i!teenrespondents or 17. O ave (or-place e!perience of 2 to 13 years. nly 1 O of t e respondents

ave served more t an 13 years. +n terms of t e present reality of T$F lecturers. Most of t eir (or-ing positions are not permanent. Universities sign employment contracts (it T$Flecturers, usually from 1 to years. 4fter t e employment contract e!piration, universities avet e rig t to decide ( et er to rene( or end t e contract. 4mong t e respondents, only ?7 or nomore t an 3O %?;. O' are on a permanent appointment compared to . O ( o avecontracts. Mean( ile, ?3.7O of t e respondents are temporary lecturers and 2. O are still on

pro#ation.

+n terms of su#"ects taug t, > respondents or more t an alf % ?.?O' teac more t anone su#"ect, ( ile >.7O, ;.>O, 2. O, ;.>O, 1 O of t e respondents teac listening, reading,(riting, spea-ing and synt esis, respectively. T e e!actly reflects t e teac ing reality of T$Flecturers. Most of t em teac t(o or even more su#"ects, suc as listening and spea-ing, readingand synt esis etc. +n terms of t e class level, .7O of t e respondents teac different classlevels, ??.>O %?1 respondents' teac t e lo( level follo(ed #y ? .;O %?? respondents' ( oteac t e middle level and 1;.2O %1> respondents' ( o teac t e ig level. +n terms of mont lyincome, none of t e respondent earns #elo( BM: 1,333 (it >O of t e respondents earning

#et(een BM: ?331 BM 333 follo(ed #y ?2 respondents or ?>. O ( o earn BM: 331BM: 333 and 1 .?O of t e respondents ( o earn BM:1333 BM:?333, compared to 1 O ( oearn a#ove BM: 333. T e minority of t e respondents % . O' earn BM: 331 BM: 333.


12/25

-2. / Anal*sis %5 J%# Fa("%$sEac of t e "o# factors, (or- itself, co (or-ers, supervision / supervisor, income, and

opportunities for promotion are analy0ed #y calculating mean value and standard deviation. T eitems of eac factor (ere arranged in descending order according to t e mean value (it t e

purpose of aving a clear vie( of t e researc results. T e minimum score is 1 and t e ma!imum

is , a cut off point of is c osen. T e ig er t e score, t e more satisfied respondents feel.

@ or- +tself Ta#le s o(s t e mean and standard deviation results for t e item of (or- itself. T e

ma"ority of t e respondents (ere strongly satisfied t at t e information tec nology is usede!tensively since t e mean value of .3 is very close to (it .DQ3.;2 ;?. +mprovementfrom t e (or- is also a very important item in "o# satisfaction since t e mean value of .;27 isvery close to (it .DQ1.32 ;. Most of t e respondents agree t e (or- is c allenging,creative, useful, and also ma-es t em feel fres #ecause of t e cross cultural aspects, since all of t ese four items are a#ove .;3, near and #ecome t e important factors in "o# satisfaction.From t e negative items (e may see respondents do not feel t e (or- is frustrating since t e

mean value is .;1 3 (it .DQ3.; 27>. Most of t e respondents are not satisfied #ecause of t estressful nature and simple specialty of t e (or- since t e mean is #elo( ?. T ese results meant at T$F lecturers ave too muc pressure, t us to en ance t eir "o# satisfaction administratorsmust find solutions to reduce lecturers8 (or- pressure.

Ta#le Mean score and td. Deviation for R(or- itself8 items on "o# satisfactionI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%n+nformation tec nology is used e!tensively .3 .;2 ;?+ can improve myself from t e "o# .;72 1.32 ;$ allenging .; 2 1.3;> >$reative .; 7 .> 3?Useful .; > .;2;;Frustrating S .;1 3 .; 27>$ross culture ma-es me feel fres .;1 3 .>;7 ?:oring S .>;1 .>>?72Kive sense of accomplis ment .2; 7 1.3? 1+nteresting .27 ; .>;3>Bespecta#le .2 1 .;>;>2

atisfying . >73 .> ;Endless S . 2 ? 1.1;>3?Pleasant . ?17 .;;;72Pleasant environment . 27 .; ?>;Fascinating . 1 3 1.3 ;>>$ross culture #rings difficulties into t e "o# S .?17 1.?>? ;Tiresome S ?.>2;2 1. 1; ;Boutine S ?.23>7 .;? 3

tressful S 1.>>3 1.3 73>imple S 1.>3 .;2 3

S denotes negative items$o (or-ers

From Ta#le (e could see t at all t ese 1 items are important in determining "o#satisfaction as t e means of all t e items are a#ove . 4mong t em, mean values for t e negativeitems of #eing unpleasant, #oring, slo(, la0y and t e positive item of tal-ative are all a#ove .T at means t at pleasant, interesting, fast, ard(or-ing and tal-ative co (or-ers could #ring


13/25

more satisfaction to T$F lecturers.Ta#le Mean score and td. Deviation for Rco (or-ers8 items on "o# satisfactionI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%nUnpleasant S . 1 ? .> 773:oring S .??> .71 >

lo( S .1 1 .>1;>

a0y S .1 1 .7;? 7Tal-ative .1 3 .; 3124ctive .3333 .7 ;

6o privacy S .;>;1 .;7771Besponsi#le .; 2 .>? ?2+ntelligent .; 7 ,; 7

mart .>;1 .;77?; 6arro( interest S .>2;2 .>;?1>

timulating .2; 7 .;>3 24m#itious .2 1 .;>;>2$ooperative . >73 1.37321S denotes negative items

upervision/ upervisor T e items of impolite, -no(s "o# (ell, la0y and influential ave t e ig est mean value

of .?23;, .? ;1, .13>7 and .3721, respectively ( ic are all a#ove (it t e .DQ3.> ;; ,3.;1> 1, 1.3; 33, 1.3 3?? . From t is, (e could see t e information t at #eing polite, -no(ingt e "o# (ell, #eing ard(or-ing and influential are e!tremely vital factors contri#uting to "o#satisfaction. ince nearly all t e items8 means are a#ove e!cept t e item of Raround ( enneeded8, (e could infer, to some e!tent, t at respondents are satisfied (it t eir supervisors andt eir supervision. T e item of #eing Raround ( en needed8 only as a mean value of ?.22 3,

#elo( , ( ic indicates a pro#lem of t e untimely elp from t e supervisor. o, ( ensupervisors consider (ays of ma-ing T$F lecturers more satisfied (it t eir (or-, giving

prompt instruction is somet ing t ey cannot neglect as it is s o(n in ta#le .

Ta#le 9 Mean score and td. Deviation for Rsupervision8 items on "o#satisfactionI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%n+mpolite S .?23; .> ;;Cno(s "o# (ell .? ;1 .;1> 1

a0y S .13>7 1.3; 33+nfluential .3721 1.3 3??

upervise clearly .;7> .> 1Besponsi#le .; 2 .> 7 ;4nnoying S .; 7 .;1>?Cno(ledgea#le .>;1 1.3?1?7Trust(ort y .>2;2 .>1 ;Praises good (or- .> 73 1.33> 3

Tactful .>3 1.11177Up to date .7 33 .;?1 2uic- tempered S .2 ?? 1.3 ?>tu##orn S . 2 ? 1.321>7

Tell me ( at + stand . 13; 1.1 >)ard to please S . 27 1.?17 24s- my opinion . > 1.3 3;7Cno(s o( to #e a goodsupervisor

. 7> 1.1>37

4round ( en needed ?.22 3 1.12;;S denotes negative items


14/25

+nco m e+n terms of income, t e means of four items are a#ove and t e ot er four are #elo( it.

From Ta#le 2 (e may see most of t e respondents t in- t e income is sufficient to cover normale!penses since t e mean value is . 2 (it t e .DQ1.3> 7. :ut t e negative item of insecure

(it a mean of ?.2 1 s o(s t at t e income is not secure and not ig %meanQ?.3>7'.Bespondents are not uite satisfied (it t eir income %meanQ?.7>?2', and even t in- it is lesst an ( at t ey deserve %meanQ?.;? ;'. From t ese results (e could see dissatisfaction of t e(or-ers for t e income t ey receive and perceived t at t eir efforts (ort t an ( at is given.

Ta#le 29 Mean score and td. Deviation for items of Rincome8 on "o# satisfactionI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%n

ufficient to cover normal . 2 1.3> 7e!penses

o( paid S . 2;2 1.33? ;Motivation for (or- .1> > 1.1 >3:arely live on income S .1 3 1.??

ess t an ( at + deserve S ?.;? ; 1.3211atisfactory ?.7>?2 .>7 >>

+nsecure S ?.2 1 1.? ?>)ig paid ?.3>73 .;S denotes negative items

pportunity for Pro m otion$ompared to ot ers, items under t e Ropportunities for promotion8 do not #ring muc

satisfaction from t e respondents. 4lt oug t ey do not completely #elieve it is a dead end "o#(it t e mean value of .?>?2, most of t em do not t in- t ere is a good opportunity for

promotion since t e mean value is ?.2 3 (it t e .DQ3.;. 1 as it is s o(n in Ta#le 7.

Ta# le 7 9 Mean sco re and td . Dev iation for Ro ppo rtun ities fo r pro mo tio n8 ite msI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%nDead end "o# S .?>?2 1. 3 2Promotion #ased on seniority .11;2 1.17 ??+nfre uent promotion S ?.;1 3 1.??>Promotion on a#ility ?.>;1 1.? 1;Promotion policy is unfair S ?.>3 1.1>>?1Begular promotion ?. 333 1.13

pportunity some( at limited S ?. 73 1.31;Kood opportunity for advancement ?.?; .;22;3Fairly good c ance promotion ?.12 3 .;3 1

S denotes negative items

*o# Factors $o m parisonEac item of t e five "o# factors as #een calculated in t e a#ove. T ey supply detailedinformation a#out t e elements influencing T$F lecturers8 "o# satisfaction. Furt ermore, (ecould t roug t e total mean of eac "o# factor ave a general vie( a#out lecturers8 "o#satisfaction as it is s o(n in Ta#le >.


15/25

Ta#le >9 Mean score and td. Deviation for Ropportunities for promotion8 itemsI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%nDead end "o# S .?>?2 1. 3 2Promotion #ased on .11;2 1.17 ??seniority+nfre uent promotion S ?.;1 3 1.??>

Promotion on a#ility ?.>;1 1.? 1;Promotion policy is unfair ?.>3 1.1>>?1SBegular promotion ?. 333 1.13

pportunity some( at ?. 73 1.31;limited SKood opportunity for ?.?; .;22;3advancementFairly good c ance

promotionS denotes negative items

?.12 3 .;3 1

$o m parison of *o# FactorsFrom Ta#le ;, it is o#vious t at t e ma"ority of respondents feel satisfied (it (or- itself,

co (or-ers, supervision and t eir supervisor, since t eir mean values are all a#ove . 4mongt em, co (or-ers #ring t e most satisfaction to respondents as t e mean value of .;222 is veryclose to . Most of t e respondents are not satisfied (it t eir income and opportunities for

promotion since t e mean values of ?.; 37 and ?.733 respectively are #ot #elo( .

Ta#le ;9 Mean $omparison of *o# FactorsI" ms M an S"an a$ D 1ia"i%n@or- itself . . 7 ?$o (or-ers .;222 . 7>

upervision / upervisor .7 7 . 1 1>+ncome ?.; 73 .2 >?

pportunities for promotion ?.733 .7?712

1). $nalysis of erall Job Satisfactionection +++ of t e uestionnaire comprises five multiple c oice uestions to e!plore

respondents8 overall attitudes a#out t e "o#, suc as ( et er t ey are satisfied (it t eir "o#,( et er t ey li-e teac ing foreign students and cross cultural (or-, and ( et er t ey (ill stayin t e (or-place until t ey retire.

From Ta#le 13 (e see t at t e ma"ority of t e respondents are satisfied (it t e "o# sinceall t eir means are a#ove . Furt ermore, t ey indicate a ig level of satisfaction (it teac ingforeign students and doing cross cultural (or- (it means of .1 ?? and .1 1 .Moreover,

2 .?O of t e respondents feel satisfied (it t eir "o# % .7O satisfied and 1>. O stronglysatisfied'.Mean( ile, >?.2O of t e respondents li-e or e!tremely/very muc li-e doing crosscultural (or- and nearly >3O of t em %7>. O' li-e teac ing foreign students. )o(ever, only

.2O of t e respondents see teac ing as t eir lifelong career and 3.?O #elieve t ey (ill stay int e (or-place until t ey retire. n t e ot er and, .>O of t e respondents old neutral vie(son t ese t(o aspects.


16/25

Ta#le 139 verall "o# satisfactionI" ms SD D N A SA M an S" . D

+ feel satisfied 2 ?? ? 17 .2 ?? 1.3 17(it my "o# % . O' %2. O' %? .;O' % .7O' %1>. O'+ li-e doing 13 > > .1 1 .;27 3

cross cultural % . O' % . O' %13.;O' % 1. O' % 1. O'

(or- + li-e teac ing ? ? 12 ? 3 .1 ?? .; 2>foreign students %?.?O' %?.?O' %17. O' % .>O' % . O'+ see teac ing as 7 1? ? 17 ? . ? ; 1.?? 23

my lifelong %7.2O' %1 .3O' % .>O' %1>. O' %?2.1O'career

+ (ill stay in > 1 ? 12 ?1 .?; 1.? 2?t is (or-place %>.7O' %12. O' % .>O' %17. O' %??.>O'

until + retire18. Si nificance $nalysis between De*o ra hic 3rofile and Job "actors

To ma-e it facilitate t e data analysis, some c anges (ere made to t e demograp ic partof t e uestionnaire. Four of t e demograp ic c aracteristics (ere c osen9 se!, education level,years of service and nature of appointment. For education level, (e deleted t e option of Rot ers8since no respondents c ose it. For years of service, (e com#ined five options into t(o, 1 13years and a#ove 13 years. For nature of appointment, (e com#ined t em into t(o options,namely permanent and non permanent. T e T test (as applied to compare demograp ic profilest at contained only t(o groups, suc as se!, years of service, and nature of appointment. For t edemograp ic profile t at contained more t an t(o groups suc as education level, t e 4nalysisof 5ariance %46 54' (as conducted. For t e purpose of analysis, p values ( ic are a#ove3.3 are considered as not significant, ( ile t e p value ( ic is e ual to 3.3 and #elo( isconsidered as significant.-7. S < an J%# Fa("%$s

From Ta#le 11, (e can see t at t ere is no significant difference #et(een male andfemale on five "o# factors since all t e p values are a#ove 3.3 . @e could also see t at t e meanfor male and female on five "o# factors are all nearly t e same (it out muc mean difference.T at is sufficient to say t at males and females ave a similar attitude on "o# factors and old t esimilar levels of "o# satisfaction from t e five aspects of t e "o#.Ta#le 119 T test analysis for five "o# factors #y

e!J%# 5a("%$s S < N M an S" . D "=1alu Sig.@or- itself Male ?3 . 7 .?7 .1> .>2

%?1.7O'Female 7? . . 3

%7>. O'

$o (or-ers Male ?3 .>7 . 7 1.3 . 3

Female 7? .;; . 3

upervision / Male ?3 .22 . 2 .;; . 7upervisor Female 7? .7> .

+ncome Male ?3 .31 .7> . 7 .2Female 7? ?.; .23

pportunities Male ?3 ?.>7 .>2 1.12 .?for promotion Female 7? ?.2 .2>


17/25

-8. E u(a"i%n L 1 l an J%# Fa("%$sTa#le 1? s o(s t at people at different education levels ave significant differences in

t eir attitudes to t e factors of (or- itself, supervision, income and promotion since t e p valuesof t ese factors are e ual to or #elo( 3.3 . T ere is no significant difference in t e factor of co

(or-ers #y education level (it t e p value of 3.; . From t e mean value (e could see t atgraduates and P Ds are more satisfied (it (or- itself t an lecturers (it a master8s degree.P D lecturers ave muc ig er levels of satisfaction in t e supervision factor t an graduatesand master8s degree lecturers (it t e mean value of .; . +n terms of income, graduates are lesssatisfied t an master8s olders (it t e mean of ?.7 and .12, respectively. $ompared to t at,P D lecturers are t e most satisfied (it t eir income (it t e mean value of . . n t e issueof opportunities for promotion, graduate lecturers do not feel satisfied since t e mean is only?. >. Masters and P D lecturers are satisfied (it t e opportunities (it a mean difference of 3. 2 #et(een t em.

Ta#le 1?9 46 54 for "o# factors #y education level

*o# factors Meanum of uares df

Meanuare F ratio ig.

Kraduate Master P D % . O' % 7 .3O' %7.2O '

@or- itself . . 3 .2 1. 7 ? .2; . 3 .31$o (or-ers .;> .; .33 .3 ? .31 .32 .;

upervision .71 .7> .; . 7 ? .1; .71 . 3+ncome ?.7 .12 . 2. ? .?? ;. .33Promotion ?. > .3? . > 1 .31 ? 2. 1 12. 3 .33

-9. Y a$s %5 S $1i( +i"& J%# Fa("%$s

T e years of service groups are recoded from t e original five groups into t(o groups tofacilitate t e analysis. T e t(o groups are9i' 1 13 yearsii' 4#ove 13 years

From Ta#le 1 , (e see t at t ere is no significant difference #et(een service years (itrespect to (or- itself and co (or-ers since t e p value is a#ove 3.3 %3. 1 and 3.;respectively'. +n terms of supervision or t e supervisor, income and opportunities for promotion,t ere is a significant difference #et(een t e t(o groups (it t e p value of 3.3 , 3.33 and 3.33respectively. ecturers (it more t an 13 years of service feel more satisfied from t e

perspective of supervision t an lecturers (it no more t an 13 years (it a mean difference of

3. . 1 13 years of service lecturers do not feel satisfied (it t eir income (it t e mean valueof ?.>>. n t e contrary, lecturers (it more t an 13 years of service are satisfied (it t eincome since t e mean is . . T is is similar to t e income situation in ( ic lecturers (itmore t an 13 years of service feel muc more satisfaction from t e perspective of opportunitiesfor promotion t an t ose (it no more t an 13 years (it t e mean difference of 3.2;.


18/25

Ta#le 1 9 T test for five "o # factors #y years of serv iceJ%# 5a("%$s Y a$s %5 s $1i( M an S" . D "=1alu Sig.@or- itself 1 13 . . > .22 . 1

%>7O'4#ove 13 . ? . 3

%1 O'

$o (or-ers 1 13 .;7 . 3 .32 .;4#ove 13 .;2 .?>upervision/ 1 13 .71 . ? ?.1; .3upervisor 4#ove 13 .3 .

+ncome 1 13 ?.>> .23 ?.;? .334#ove 13 . .71

pportunities 1 13 ?.21 .7? .1; .33for promotion 4#ove 13 . 3 . 1

/;. Na"u$ %5 A::%in"m n" +i"& J%# Fa("%$sT e nature of appointment is recoded from t e original four groups into t(o groups to

facilitate t e analysis. T e t(o groups are9i' Permanentii' 6on permanent

Ta#le 1 s o(s t at t ere is no significant difference #et(een permanent and non permanent lecturers in t e aspects of (or- itself, co (or-ers and supervision since t eir p valuesare all a#ove 3.3 %3.??, 3. , 3.1 , respectively'. +n contrast, t ere are significant differences interms of income and opportunities for promotion (it p values of 3.3? and 3.33, respectively.

6on permanent lecturers are not uite satisfied (it t eir income (it t e mean of ?.> .$ompared to t at, permanent lecturers are satisfied (it t eir income (it t e mean value of

.1;. T eir mean difference is 3. . imilar to t is, permanent lecturers are satisfied (it t eopportunities for promotion (it a mean value of .17, #ut non permanent lecturers are notsatisfied (it t e opportunities (it a mean value of only ?. 3.

Ta#le 1 9 T test for five "o# factors #y nature of appointment

J%# 5a("%$s Na"u$ %5a::%in"m n"

M an S" . D "=1alu Sig.

@or- itself Permanent%?;. O' 6on permanent

. >

. >

.

. ;

1.? .??

$o (or-ers%73.7O'

Permanent .;3 .?; .>3 . 6on permanent .;; .

upervision/ Permanent .>> . 3 1. 7 .1upervisor 6on permanent .71 . 1+ncome Permanent .1; .23 ?. 7 .3?

6on permanent ?.> .2pportunities Permanent .17 . 2 . 3 .33

for promotion 6on permanent ?. 3 .73


19/25

/-. Summa$*+n terms of t e demograp ic profile of t e respondents, t ere are more female

respondents t an males, accounting for 7>. O of t e total num#er. Most of t em old a #ac elor8s or master8s degree. More t an 73O %71.7O' are no more t an 3 years old, and >7O

ave no more t an ten years of teac ing e!perience. More t an alf of respondents % ?.?O' teac

more t an one su#"ect. nly less t an 3O %?;. O' of respondents are permanent lecturers, andt e ot er 73.7O are (or-ing on contract, on pro#ation or are temporary T$F lecturers. T eresult of t e data analysis indicates t at T$F lecturers are satisfied (it t e (or- itself, t eir co (or-ers and supervision, #ut not satisfied (it t e income and opportunities for promotion%(it mean values of ?.; 73 and ?.733 , respectively, #ot less t an '.

T ere is no significant difference #et(een male and female T$F lecturers (it respectto satisfaction on five "o# factors since p 3.3 . T$F lecturers (it P D degrees ave ig er levels of "o# satisfaction t an lecturers (it #ac elor8s and master8s degrees. +ndeed,, graduatesare not satisfied (it t e income and opportunities for promotion (it t e mean value #elo( .T ere is no significant relations ip #et(een lecturers (it more t an 13 years of service and

lecturers (it no more t an 13 years of e!perience in t e factors of t e (or- itself and co(or-ers, #ut t ere are significant differences #et(een t en in terms of supervision, income andopportunities for promotion. T ere are significant differences #et(een permanent and non

permanent lecturers (it respect to income and opportunities for promotion since pV3.3 .Permanent lecturers s o( ig er levels of satisfaction t an non permanent lecturers (it t eset(o "o# factors. .

@it regards to t e t ree voluntary reply su#"ect uestions, only a fe( lecturers ans(eredt em. 6early all of t e respondents prefer #eing T$F lecturers to #eing traditional $ ineselecturers due to t e strong usa#ility of language -no(ledge in t e process of T$F . Most of t ereasons for leaving t e position are t e insecure income and fe( opportunities for promotion.

//. Dis(ussi%n %5 Fin ingsT e findings of t e study reveal t at nearly four fift s of t e respondents are female

lecturers. 4ctually, female T$F lecturers account for a large part of t e total T$F lecturers8group. ess t an one t ird of t e respondents are a#ove 3 years old and less t an a uarter of t em ave more t an ten years of service. :eing young and aving a lac- of ric teac inge!perience is a universal p enomenon among T$F lecturers. More t an alf of t e respondentsteac more t an one su#"ect. T is #rings certain pressure to #ear on T$F lecturers due to t eneed to prepare different contents of teac ing plans at t e same time. Most of t em old

#ac elor8s or master8s degrees, and less t an one t ird are permanent lecturers. *o# security is a #ig pro#lem for T$F lecturers.

T e result of t e study indicates t at T$F lecturers are satisfied (it t e (or- itself,t eir co (or-ers and supervision, #ut not satisfied (it t eir income and opportunities for

promotion. T e results of t e data analysis indicate t at t ere is no significant difference #et(eenmale and female T$F lecturers (it respect to satisfaction on five "o# factors. T is finding iscontrary to t e studies of :enge %1; ' and $ole %1; 3' ( ic report t at females are moresatisfied t an men or males are more satisfied t an females. +t is consistent (it studies ( ics o( no significant difference #et(een males and females in terms of "o# satisfaction.


20/25

T e analysis results s o( t at t ere are significant differences among lecturers atdifferent education levels in t e aspect of (or- itself, supervision, income and opportunities or

promotion. From t e mean value (e could see t at T$F lecturers (it a P D degree ave aig er level of "o# satisfaction t an lecturers (it #ac elors and master8s degrees. T e current

study is in line (it t e studies conducted #y Bao %1;73' and $arrell and El#ert %1;7 ' ( icindicates t at t ere is a significant relations ip #et(een "o# satisfaction and t e educational levelof individual lecturers and it is considered as a significant determinant of "o# satisfaction.

4not er finding is t at t ere is no significant difference #et(een lecturers (it more t an13 years of service and lecturers (it no more t an 13 years of e!perience in t e factors of (or- itself and co (or-ers, #ut t ere are significant differences #et(een t em in terms of supervision,income and opportunities for promotion. ecturers (it more t an 13 years of service feel moresatisfied t an lecturers (it less t an 13 years in nearly in all "o# factors related to t is study,especially in terms of income and promotion. T ese results run counter to t e studies of :everlyClec-er and @illiam E. oadman %1;;7' ( ic s o(s t at "o# satisfaction decreased (it t e

num#er of years t e person as #een in t e profession. T ey are, o(ever, it consistent (it t estudy of )odge %1;77' ( ic s o(s t at t e level of "o# satisfaction increases for professors asyears of employment at t e institutions increase in num#er.

/0. C%n(lusi%nsFive determiners of "o# satisfaction are related to test t e level of T$F lecturers8 "o#

satisfaction9 (or- itself, co (or-ers, supervision / supervisor, income and opportunities for promotion. n t e issue of (or- itself, t ere is no significant difference #et(een male andfemale T$F lecturers. :ut lecturers at different education levels ave different attitudes to t e(or-. T$F lecturers (it P D degree s o( most satisfaction to it follo(ed #y lecturers (it

#ac elor8s degrees. ecturers (it master8s degrees feel less satisfied (it it. T ere is nosignificant difference among lecturers (it different teac ing e!perience and in permanent or non permanent positions. +n terms of co (or-ers, all t e four demograp ic c aracteristics aveno o#vious influence on t e five "o# factors. 4ll t e lecturers s o( ig levels of satisfaction(it t eir co (or-ers.

@it respect to supervision or t e supervisor, t ere is no significant difference #et(eenmale and female lecturers, lecturers (it different education levels, permanent or non permanentlecturers to(ards supervision or t e supervisor. :ut lecturers (it different years of teac inge!perience ave different satisfaction levels regarding supervision. ecturers (it more t an tenyears8 e!perience s o( a uite ig level of satisfaction. $ompared to t at, lecturers (it nomore t an ten years of service do not ave t at -ind of ig level satisfaction (it t esupervision. 4ll of t e demograp ic c aracteristics differ to(ards income e!cept for gender. P Dlecturers are more satisfied t an master8s olders, in a similar (ay to graduates. ecturers (itmore t an ten years of service feel satisfied (it t e income, ( ile lecturers (it no more t anten years of service do not feel satisfied. 6on permanent lecturers are not uite satisfied, ( ile

permanent lecturers are satisfied (it t e income. T ese seem to s o( t e pro#lem of freslecturers not aving ig incomes #ecause of limited classes. Permanent lecturers are moresatisfied t an non permanent lecturers due to lo( pressure a#out t e "o# insecurity.


21/25

+n terms of opportunities for promotion, males and females #ot s o( less satisfaction.ecturers (it master8s and P D degrees e!press satisfaction (it t e opportunities for

promotion compared to t e e!tremely lo( satisfaction e! i#ited #y lecturers (it a #ac elor8sdegree. ecturers (it more t an ten years of (or-ing e!perience feel more satisfied (it t eopportunities for promotion t ey ave o#tained. T ere is a significant difference #et(een

permanent lecturers and non permanent lecturers in terms of t e opportunities for promotion. 6on permanent lecturers are not satisfied (it t e availa#le opportunities. T is indicates t atgraduate lecturers, less e!perienced lecturers and non permanent lecturers s ould #e given moreopportunities for practising t eir s-ills. From t e results of overall "o# satisfaction (e see t atT$F lecturers are satisfied (it t eir (or-, and are especially uite satisfied (it doing crosscultural (or- and teac ing foreign students.


22/25

R 5 $ n( s4dams, *. . %1;2 '. +ne uity in social e!c ange. +n .:er-o(it0 %Ed.', Advances in

experimental social psychology. 6e( Lor-9 4cademic Press.4 u"a, D.$., RMental ealt )a0ards among c ool Teac ers8, The Educational Revie , >,

1;72, 1 W 1 7.

:lum, M. ., & 6aylor, *. $. %1;2>'. !ndustrial psychology" !ts theoretical and social foundations. 6e( Lor-, 6L9 )arper & Bo(.:lum, :. +. %Ed.'. %1;>?'. Proceedings of t e si!t annual symposium on computer applications

in medicine. os 4ngeles, $49 +EEE $omputer ociety Press.:lum, M. . %1; >'. !ndustrial psychology and its social foundations . %Bev. ed.' 6e( Lor-9

)arper.:rayfield, 4. )., & @. $. $roc-ett %1; '. AEmployee 4ttitudes and Employee Performance.A

Psychological #ulletin$ % ?', ;2 ? .:ulter, T. ). %1;21'. atisfactions of #eginning teac ers. %learing &ouse$ '($ 11.$ *ala"a Cumari.%?337'. )ob Satisfaction of *ecturers . Discovery Pu#lis ing )ouse. 13?

p, + :6 9 >1 > 2 ?;

$amp#ell, *. P. et al. %1;73'. +anagerial #ehavior$ Performance$ and Effectiveness. 6e( Lor-9McKra( )ill$arrell, M. & El#ert, 6. %1;7 '.. ome personal and organi0ational determinants of "o#

satisfaction of postal cler-s. Academy of +anagement )ournal$ 12, 22.Mis-el,c., DeFrain, *., and @ilco!, C. %1;>3'. I4 Test of E!pectancy Motivation T eory in

Education rgani0ationsJ Education Administration ,uarterly , 129 73 ;?.4lderfer, $. %1;2;'. 4n Empirical Test of a 6e( T eory of )uman 6eeds. rgani0ational

:e avior and )uman Performance, vol. , pp. 1 ? 17 .$urtis, . %1;; '. Telep one conversation. :ris#ane.DeMeuse, C. P. %1;> '. 4 compendium of fre uently used measures in industrial/organi0ational

psyc ology. The !ndustrial- rgani/ational Psychologist$ 0'$ ;.Evans, . %1;;7'. Understanding Teac ers Morale and *o# atisfaction. Teaching and teacher

Education$ 1 %>'. > 1 >Feng, :. %1;;2'. *iaos igong0uomanyi"i iying!iangyinsu de yan"iu XFactors affecting lecturer

"o# satisfactionY. )iaoyuyan1iu$ 0$ ? ;.Karner, C. %1;; '. eaders ip for sc ool restructuring. 5olume 3, 6o .1; 3. Krune#erg, M.M.%1;7;'. 2nderstanding )ob Satisfaction$ ondon9 T e Macmillan Press. )er0#erg, F %1;;2' 3or4 and the Nature of +an . 6e( Lor-9 $leveland9 @orld Pu#lis ing. )er0#erg, F., Mausner, :., &

nyderman, :. :. %1; ;'. The motivation to or4. 6e( Lor-9 *o n@iley and ons.

)ert0#erg, F. %1;22'.@or- and t e 6ature of Man. @orld, $leveland.)odge, M. ). %1;77'. +edical information systems . Kermanto(n, MD9 4spen ystems

$orporation.)er0#erg. F., Mausner, :, & ynderman, : %1; ;'. The +otivation to 3or4 . 6e( Lor-9 *o n

@iley and ons.Camaruddin Mo d )as im % 1;; '. ICepuasan Cer"a di -alangan Kuru Penolong Canan )al

E (al Murid di e-ola Menenga 6egeri Pera-.J into- 9Universiti Utara Malaysia.% Tida- diter#it-an '.

C ale ue, 4., & $ oud ary, 6. %1;> '. *o# facets and overall "o# satisfaction of industrialmanagers. !ndian )ournal of !ndustrial Relations , ?3, 2 .


23/25

Clec-er, :., & oadman, @. E. %1;;7'. E!ploring Teac ers *o# atisfaction 4cross Lears of Teac ing E!perience. Unpu#lis ed Manuscript, io tate University.

a(ler, E. E., +++, & )all, D. T. %1;73'.Belations ip of "o# c aracteristics to "o# involvement,satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. )ournal of Applied Psychology , , 3 T 1?.

ipsit0, *. %1;> '. Successful Schools for 5oung Adolescent . 6e( :runs(ic-, 6*9 Transaction

:oo-s.oc-e, E.4 %1;27'. @ at is *o# atisfaction. rgani/ational #ehavior and &uman Performance ,9 3; 2.

oc-e, E.4 %1;72'. T e 6ature and $auses of *o# Satisfaction . +n M.D. Dunnette %Ed.', &andboo4 of !ndustrial and rgani/ational Psychology , 1 3? $ icago9 Band Mc6ally

oc-e, E.4 & )enne, K %1;>2' @or- Motivation T eories. +n $. . $ooper and +.T Bo#ertson. !nternational Revie of !ndustrial and rgani/ational Psychology , 1 .

a(ler, E. E. & ; ;2.

o(t er, M. 4. %1;> '. 4ge and Determinants of ecturer *o# atisfaction. 6erontologist$ 07879$?3 ? .

Maslo(, 4. ). %1; '. 4 t eory of )uman Motivation . Psychological Revie $ 7:$p. ';:.Maslo(, 4.). %1; ' +otivation and Personality . 6e( Lor-9 )arper and Bo(Maslo(, 4. ). %1; '. 4 t eory of )uman Motivation. Psychological Revie , 3, p. 73.Mitc ell, T.B, )oltom, :.$, & ee, T.@. %?331'. &o to 4eep your best employees" Developing

an effective retention policy . 4cademy of Management E!ecutive, 1 % ', ;2 13;. +issha 4$ +.). 8


24/25

mit , P. $., Cendall, . M., & )ulin, $. . %1;2;'.T e measurement of satisfaction in (or- andretirement. $ icago, + 9 Band Mc6ally.

5an Maane, *. & Cat0, B. %1;72'. +ndividuals and t eir careers9 some temporal considerationsfor (or- satisfaction. Personnel Psychology. ?; % '.23 21>.

@alder, 4. K. %1;>2'. %ommunist Neo-traditionalism . :er-eley, $49 University of $alifornia

Press.@ernimont %1;7? , 4 system vie( of "o# satisfaction, )ournal of Applied Psychology ,5ol. 2,p.17 .

@ iteford, Patricia $. .%1;;3'.Differences #et(een Teac ers @ o )ave and )ave 6ot Taug t$ontinuously during t e First Five Lears after Kraduation. Paper presented at t e 4nnualMeeting of t e Mid(estern Educational Besearc 4ssociation. $ icago.

Niao, . & i, $. %?33 '.@oguo"iaos i!uyaoyan"ius uping XTeac ers8 needs in $ inaY. )ournal of &ebei Normal 2niversity 8Educational Science Edition9$ No. '$ 0>-'< 8%hinese9.

Available at" ttp9//(((.pep.co m .cn/?33 32/ca >7112. tmLe00i, *., & ester, D. %?333'.*o# atisfaction in Teac ers. Psychological Reports$ >;87, cto#er'. atisfaction in union mem#ers and t eir spouses. Paper presented at

t e *o# atisfaction9 4dvances in Besearc and Practice $onference, :o(ling Kreen, io.
http://www.pep.com.cn/200406/ca487116.htmhttp://www.pep.com.cn/200406/ca487116.htm


25/25

$opyrig t of +nterdisciplinary *ournal of $ontemporary Besearc in :usiness is t e property of

+nterdisciplinary *ournal of $ontemporary Besearc in :usiness and its content may not #e copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv (it out t e copyrig t older

Documents

A STUDY OF LECTURERS’ JOB SATISFACTION IN SELECTED HARBIN CITY UNIVERSITIES, CHINA.doc