Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (7) 2006 Guidelines to authors LRRD News

Citation of this paper

Job satisfaction of faculty members of veterinary sciences: an analysis

M Gautam, K Mandal and R S Dalal*

Division of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry,
SKUAST-J, R.S.Pura, Jammu, India*
Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, Collegeof Veterinary Sciences, Hisar, India.
malayjammu@yahoo.com


Abstract

The present study was conducted to measure the level of job satisfaction of the faculty members of Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu and to explore the variation in the job satisfaction level. The job satisfaction was assessed using the scale developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951).

The overall job satisfaction of the faculty members is moderate. The younger faculty members are more satisfied as compared to those with a longer service period although the relationship is not linear.

Key words: Job satisfaction, motivation, veterinary science


Introduction

The job satisfaction of an employee is a topic that has received considerable attention by researchers and managers alike. The most important information to have regarding an employee in an organization is a validated measure of his/her level of job satisfaction (Roznowski and Hulin 1992). Behavioural and social science research suggests that job satisfaction and job performance are positively correlated (Bowran and Todd 1999). A better understanding of job satisfaction and factors associated with it helps managers guide employees' activities in a desired direction. The morale of employees is a deciding factor in the organization's efficiency (Chaudhary and Banerjee 2004). Thus, it is fruitful to say that managers, supervisors, human resource specialists, employees, and citizens in general are concerned with ways of improving job satisfaction (Cranny et al 1992).

The foundation of job satisfaction theory was introduced by Maslow with five-stage hierarchy of human needs, now recognized as the deprivation/gratification proposition (Mertler 1992). However, much of job satisfaction research has focused on employees in the private sector (Lawer and Porter 1968, Niehouse 1986). Several studies have also been conducted in different parts of the world to measure job satisfaction of university faculty in agriculture (Schultz 1977, Bowen 1980, Blezek 1987, Sorcienilli and Near 1989).

The motivation to investigate the degree of job satisfaction arises from the fact that a better understanding of employee satisfaction is desirable to achieve a higher level of motivation which is directly associated with student achievement. Recently, the assessment of employees attitude such as job satisfaction has become a common activity in organizations in which management is concerned with the physical and psychological well being of people (Spector 1997).

Considering the above facts, the present study was conducted to measure the level of job satisfaction of the faculty members of Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry (Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry), Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu (SKUAST-J), India and to explore the variation in the job satisfaction level.


Methodology

A specific questionnaire (Annex 1) was developed to measure the level of job satisfaction of faculty members of Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, SKUAST-J, India. The questionnaire contained two parts - part I pertained to general demographic variables of the respondents like age, length of service, trainings and educational achievements. Part II contained the scale to measure the level of job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction was assessed using the scale developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). This scale consists of 18 items with five alternative responses i. e., strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree which are scored 1 to 5. The scale contains 9 positive and 9 negative statements. The maximum possible score for a respondent was 90 and the minimum of 18. The higher scores on the scale indicate higher job satisfaction while lower scores indicate lower job satisfaction. The scale has high reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.87).

The questionnaire was distributed to all the members of faculty. A total of 44 faculty members responded and this data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. As suggested by Miller and Smith (1983) subjects who responded early (within 2 weeks) were compared with those who responded late. However, no significant difference was found.


Results and discussion

The demographic characteristics of faculty members are presented in Table1.


Table 1.  Demographic characteristics of faculty members (n=44)

Variables

Mean

Standard Deviation

Standard Error

Age

36

5.91

0.92

Qualification

1.67

0.51

0.07

Experience

7.15

6.44

1.01

Training

1.41

0.86

0.13

Job satisfaction scores

61.2

8.12

1.26


More than two-third of the faculty members had obtained Ph.D. and were relatively young with the average age of 36 years. Consequently, the average experience was 7.15 years. Most of the faculty members (79.54 %) had obtained more than one training in their respective fields in recent past. Based on a five-point Likert type scale with responses ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1), respondents provided a mean score of 61.19±1.2 (Mean± SE) on the job satisfaction scale. The score is indicative of a moderate level of job satisfaction among faculty members. The findings are in agreement with Schultz (1977) who reported that home economics faculty in institutions with 500 or more home economics undergraduates were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their salary and some what satisfied with their administration and job pressure. On the other hand, Cowie et al (1989) found that agriculture and forestry faculty at West Virginia University were very satisfied with their positions.

For elaborate understanding of the results, the respondents were classified into three categories based on mean (Table 2). The three categories thus formed were low (upto55), medium (56-70) and high (above 70).


Table 2.  Distribution of respondents with different level of job satisfaction (n=44)

Category

Frequency

%

Average age, years

Average experience, years

Average job satisfaction score

Low (upto55 )

10

22.73

42

12

49.25.01

Medium (56-70)

26

59.09

33

4.6

61.444.25

High (above70)

8

18.18

35

9.4

74.574.03


Respondents with low level of job satisfaction

The 22.73 per cent of the respondents constituted this category with an average score of 49.2±5.01 (Mean ± SD) on the job satisfaction scale. Their average age was found to be 42 years with a mean experience of 12 years .This clearly indicates that senior faculty members had lesser degree of job satisfaction when compared with younger faculty members. The premise of the motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg et al 1959) is that jobs have specific factors which are related to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The five factors thought to facilitate job satisfaction are achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement. The five factors identified as determinants of job dissatisfaction are policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions. However, Bowen (1980) opined that "Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory is not applicable to teacher educators in agriculture". Padilla-Velez (1993) supports the motivation-hygiene theory in educational settings but a review of literature reveals criticism of the theory (Moxley 1977, Poling 1990, Steers and Porter 1992). It appears that Herzberg's theory is not applicable in this case also as the job dissatisfaction factors are likely to be similar for all the faculty members irrespective of their age. Davis and Newstrom (1989) suggest that job satisfaction can be regarded as one of the aspects of life satisfaction and that experiences on the job influence perceptions of the job, and vice-versa. It can be proposed here that with the advancement of age, the degree of life satisfaction probably reduces when compared with younger members who in general are likely to have lesser demands on life satisfaction side. This probably is reflected in the scores of job satisfaction.

Moreover, it is generally believed that higher the degree of skill utilization the higher would be the level of job satisfaction, since self-actualization need is satisfied. Poor utilization of the skill was identified as a factor contributing towards job dissatisfaction by 80.8 per cent of the subjects in a study conducted by Chaudhary and Banerjee (2004). Similarly, it can be hypothesized here that senior faculty members are finding lesser utilization of their skill and thus the lesser job satisfaction score. However, there is need to further explore the reasons behind the lesser job satisfaction of senior faculty members.

Respondents with medium level of job satisfaction

Respondents whose job satisfaction score was between 56 to 70 were classified in this category. The average age of this group was 33 years with a mean experience of 4.6 years. The majority of the respondents (59.09 %) were in this category with an average job satisfaction score of 61.44± 4.25. The respondents in this category were mostly young and most of them have been recruited recently. Their moderate level of job satisfaction can probably be explained on the basis of the fact that they enjoy a sense of satisfaction for the recently acquired recognitions, responsibilities and achievement in the form of getting selected for the job. The recruitment for the job itself is a satisfactory experience in the form of recognition and achievement for having successfully competed for the job.

However, there is scope and need to motivate these employees by providing adequate satisfaction factors like appropriate work distribution, advancement and responsibilities. Moreover, further studies should be conducted to identify dissatisfaction factors and appropriately remove with such irritants. This becomes more so important owing to the fact that they are likely to serve the organization for a longer period. This is in turn is likely to support the growth of the organization.

It is not uncommon to find reviews of research in agricultural education that suggest agricultural teachers were fairly or moderately satisfied with their jobs (Beavers et al 1987). Cano and Miller (1992) further suggested that knowledge of the job level satisfaction was not enough for dealing with the consequences of job dissatisfaction but determination of factors which lead to satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction was also required.

Respondents with high level of job satisfaction

About 18.18 per cent of the respondents had job satisfaction scores higher than 70 and were therefore classified in this group. Their average age was 35 years with an average experience of 9.4 years. The average job satisfaction score of the group was 74.57±4.03. The notable fact in this group is the higher mean experience score (9.4) of this group (Table 2). This, consequently, can be used to conclude that the members of this group joined the faculty earlier than the other two groups. This in turn can be used to hypothesize that their need for gratification was met early/earlier than the faculty members classified in the other two groups. When the questionnaires were critically scrutinized it was found that some of the members of this group had recently received career advancement. Thus, it can be hypothesized that advancement acted as a strong motivational/satisfaction factor. All other things being equal, promotional opportunities have a positive correlation to job satisfaction (Chaudhary and Banerjee 2004). Herzberg, in his two factors theory, emphasized the fact that opportunities for growth and advancement are strong motivators and hence lead to more job satisfaction. Mertler (1992) reported that higher levels of motivation are directly associated with greater job satisfaction. He further wrote that satisfied teachers were more productive ultimately producing motivated students and increased students achievements.


Conclusion


References

Beavers K C, Jewell L R and Malpiedi B J 1987 Job satisfaction of North Carolina vocational agriculture teachers. Paper presented at the thirty-sixth southern region research conference in agricultural education.

Blezek A G 1987 Job satisfaction priorities of faculty in the college of agriculture, University of Nebraska, NACTA journal, 31(2):46-48

Bowen B E 1980 Job satisfaction of teacher educators in agriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Bowran J and Todd K 1999 Job stressor and job satisfaction in a major metropolitan public EMS service . Pre hospital and disaster medicine 14(4):236-239

Brayfield A H and Rothe H F 1951 An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology 35:307-311

Cano J and Miller G 1992 A gender analysis of job satisfaction, job satisfier factors, and job dis-satisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of agricultural education 33(3):40-46

Chaudhury S and Banerjee A 2004 Correlates of job satisfaction in medical officers. MJAFI,60(4):329-332

Cowie M L, Gartin S A , Odell K S and Lawrance L D 1989 Job satisfaction of college of agriculture and forestry teaching faculty at West Virginia University. Proceeding of the 43rd Eastern Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, 43:46-50.

Cranny C J, Smith P C and Stone E F 1992 Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Books: New York.

Davis K and Newstrom J W 1989 Human behaviour at work: Organizational behaviour (8th edition) New York, McGraw Hill

Herzberg F, Mausner B and Snyderman B B 1959 The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Lawer E E and Porter L W 1968 The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial relations, 1:20-28

Mertler C A 1992 Teacher motivation and job satisfaction of public school teachers, Unpublished masters thesis, the Ohio State University.

Miller L E and Smith K 1983 Handling non responses issues. Journal of extension, 28:37

Moxley L S 1977 Job satisfaction of faculty teaching higher education: An examination of Herzberg's dual factor theory and Porter's need satisfaction research. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 139349)

Niehouse O L 1986 Job satisfaction: How to motivate today's worker. Supervisory management, 8-11

Padilla-Velez D 1993 Job satisfaction of vocational teachers in Puerto Rico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Poling R L 1990 Factors associated with job satisfaction of faculty members at a land grant university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus

Roznowski M and Hulin C 1992 The scientific merit of valid measures of general constructs with special reference to job satisfaction and job withdrawl. In Cranny C J, Smith P C and Stone E F (Editors). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Books: New York.

Schultz J B 1977 Job satisfaction of home economics college faculty. Journal of vocational education research, 2(2):59-72

Sorcinelli M D and Near J B 1989 Relations between work and life away from work among university faculty. Journal of higher education, 60(1): 59-81

Spector P E 1997 Job Satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Steers R M and Porter L W 1992 Motivation and work behaviour. McGraw Hill: New York






Annex 1: Proforma to measure degree of job satisfaction

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached here a set of proforma to measure the degree of job satisfaction of the scientists of the F.V.Sc and A.H. Kindly make it convenient to fill the proforma within a week of receipt. This is purely an academic exercise intended to evaluate the factors affecting the level of job satisfaction of an employee in a typical organizational climate. The confidentiality of the responses will be strictly maintained and this will be used for academic purposes only.

The filled in proforma may please be returned to the division of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension.

Name of the scientist (optional):

Designation:

Division/ Department:

Age in years:

Experience in years:

Academic qualification:

Degree                                                                     Institute

BVScandAH

MVSc

Ph. D


Trainings attended in the last five years:

Sr No Title Place

1
2
3
4
5

Given below is a table containing twenty statements to reflect the degree of job satisfaction of an employee. Kindly read these carefully and tick mark your response against the appropriate category:


Job satisfaction item

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

1. My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.

 

 

 

 

 

3. I feel my job is more interesting than others I
could get.

 

 

 

 

 

4. I find real enjoyment in my work.

 

 

 

 

 

5. I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people.

 

 

 

 

 

6. I feel fairly well-satisfied with my present job.

 

 

 

 

 

7. I am satisfied with my job for the time being.

 

 

 

 

 

8. I like my job better than the average worker does.

 

 

 

 

 

9. My job is like a hobby to me.

 

 

 

 

 

10. It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

11. My job has a fair (impartial) promotion policy.

 

 

 

 

 

12. I enjoy my work more than my leisure time.

 

 

 

 

 

13. Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work

 

 

 

 

 

14. I consider my job rather unpleasant.

 

 

 

 

 

15. I am disappointed that I took this job.

 

 

 

 

 

16. My job is pretty interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

17. Each day of work seems like it will never end.

 

 

 

 

 

18. I am adequately paid for the job I do.

 

 

 

 

 

19. I am often bored with my job.

 

 

 

 

 

20. I definitely dislike my work.

 

 

 

 

 


Your suggestions to improve the degree of job satisfaction, if any:


Received 24 April 2006; Accepted 23 May 2006; Published 2 August 2006

Go to top