Job Satisfaction and Wok Motivation Amongtheteaching Staff of Higher Education Institutions of Madhya Pradesh
Dr. Usha Tiwari*
Faculty, MBA (HRD), APS University, Rewa (M.P.) 486003
ABSTRACT:
Teacher is the central element in educational system holding various important responsibilities. The overall performance of educational institution depends upon their teachers and ultimately their level of job satisfaction and work motivation. Thus understanding their behaviors and additudes needs more attention in organizations. The main objective of this paper is to study the level of job satisfaction and work motivation among the teachers of Higher Education Institutions of Madhya Pradesh. The hypothesis of the study is the istitutions has high degree of job satisfaction and work motivation and variation would not exist among the different group of teachers. Questionnaire having 18 factors to assess job satisfaction and work motivation and the score has been obtained on a 5 point scale. In order to make the interpretation easier the mean score was converted in percentage score.The result indicates that 9 items is good, 7 items is average and 2 items is poor score. Conclusively the score of job satisfaction and work motivation among teachers of higher education institutions is average/ unsatisfactory (58.17 %). Results show that the most important regions for low level of job satisfaction are because of poor or average responses of the teachers against certain factors. The factors which need special attention include chances to learn, working condition, performance appraisal, chances to use ability, promotion, fairness, fringe benefits, personnei relations, administrative decision etc.With regard to the satisfaction analysis and variation in the perception the finding reveals that there is an inverse correlation in certain factors among different cadres of teachers. Therefore, the hypothesis stands rejected.
KEY WORDS: Job satisfaction, Work motivation, Higher Education, Teachers.
INTRODUCTION:
The term job satisfaction refers to the attituted and feelings people have about their work. Job satisfaction is the key ingridient that leads to recognition, income, promotion,and the achevement of other goals that lead to a feeling of fulfillment. Job satisfaction defined as a "pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience”. Teacher is the central element in educational system holding various important responsibilities. The overall performance of educational institution depends upon their teachers and ultimately their level of commitment and job satisfaction. Thus understanding their behaviors and additudes needs more attention in organizations. The main objective of this paper is to study the level of job satisfaction and work motivation among the teachers of Higher Education Institutions of Madhya Pradesh. The hypothesis of the study is the istitutions has high degree of job satisfaction and work motivation and variation would not exist among the different group of teachers.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
The Emerging Directions in Globla Education (EDGE) survey report 2009, on 'Faculty Recruitment and Retention - The Issues and Challenges' throws light on the challenge involving faculty recruitment and retention in India. The survey reports that average attrition rate in academic insitute were about 25 percent per annum. Compensation along with other employee benefits were the two major professional reasons for the faculty to leave the institute, whereas job security is another additional factor in case of private institutes. Faculty like family living locally and availability of school in the locality are given more importance by the private institute faculties. According to students' view 60 percent of the faculty exit during the academic year which badly affects their studies. This trend was much higher in case of private institutes as compared to their government counterpart. Students also opined that availability of better compensation and career option and lack of growth opportunities in the existing institutes resulted in faculty exit. Stragegies suggested by the report for faculty retention were promotion based on performance, faculty freedom, encouraging research programme, training opportunities for career growth, transparent appraisal system and housing facility. The report finally concludes that introducing innovative HR tools in line with the corporate sectors may help in bringing down the attrition rate to some extent.
The following key benefits highlight the significance of this research effort:
(a) Deal with faculty shortage: In order survive, education institutes have to face several challenges and faculty crisis is perhaps the most critical. The current and predicted shortages of competent faculty members can go from 'concern' to 'crises' in coming decades. Faculty job satisfaction can improve faculty retention rate and arrest attrition rate.
(b) Sustain quality of education: Quality faculty is must for quality education. Quality is not inborn, it needs to be inculcated and practices, which in turn calls for continuous training and commitment on part of the faculty members. A satisfied faculty will take initiative and keen interest towards training programs in true sense.
(c) Student satisfaction: Faculty members working for the cause of higher education need to be retained with the view to providing top class education and satisfaction to the students.
(d) Organizational commitment: Better job satisfaction will provide current faculty members a reason to continue with the institute and stay committed.
(e) Image building of the institute: Satisfaction and retention of qualified faculty is an important factor in maintaining the identity and professional climate of a management institute and to improve its reputation in the market.
(f) Attract talent towards teaching profession: Teching has become an unattractive profession today for which young talents prefer other helthy paid salaried jobs and career options. Faculty retention strategies can improve the image of teaching as a profession and there by make it an attractive career option for the youth of the country.
Some studies have been conducted to highlight the factors that determine the influence of the job satisfaction (Allen and Meyer (1990),), Dhar and Jain (1992), Ganguli (1994), Clark (1995,), Kumar (2000), Shrivastava (2000), Davis (2001), James (2001), Kretiner and Kinicki(2006), Khan (2012), Shettiand Gujarthi (2012), Malik (2013), Agrawal and Nagar (2013),), Malik N.(2013), Shamina (2014), Tiwari (2014).
Allen and Meyer (1990) suggested that individuals become committed to professions for a variety of reasons, including on affective attachment to the values of the profession, a realization of the costs involved with leaving the profession, and a sense of obligation to the profession. Kreitner and Kiniki (2006) identfied five predominant causal models: need fulfillment (e.g. salary needs, family needs); discrepancies between what is expected and what actually happens; fulfillment of work values, equity or fairness of treatment; and dispositional components where certain congenital personality traits led to job satisfaction
Shetty and Gujarathi (2012) indicate in his studies that in today fast changing economy, faculty members thrive for professional growth and development, not just salary, to service better position in future. Malik Manju (2013) shows that ad-hoc basis faculties of the college are highly dissastisfied regarding salary, leave benefits, job security, research support and facilities, career development.Malik Nadeem (2013) reported that "work itself" was the most motivating aspect for faculty, the least motivating aspect was "working conditions". The factors "work it self" and "advancement" explained 60% of variance among faculty members overall level of job satisfaction. The demographic characteristics (age, experience, academic rank, degree) were negligibly related to overall job satisfaction.
Shamina (2014) in her study shows that teachers have high degree of job satisfaction on certain dimensions like work itself, supervision, pay, cowerkers and promotion opportunities.Tiwari(2014) suggested the basic reason of low job satisfaction among the non-teaching staff of A.P.S. University, Rewa (M.P.) is because of poor response of the employees against certain factors. The factors which need special attention include promotion, salary, fringe benefits, chances to learn, employees development, working condition, performance appraisal, co-ordination, team spirit, encouragement, fairness, administrative decisions etc. If these factors are patiently attended in consultation with the employees, the degradation can be effectively improved.
OBJECTIVES:
1. To study the job satisfaction and work motivation among teachers of higher education institutions.
2. To assess the variations in job satisfaction and work motivation among various group of teachers.
3. To suggest appropriate measures to improve the job satisfaction and work motivation among teachers of higher education institution.
METHODOLOGY:
With a view to analysing the job satisfaction of teachers in Higher Education Institutions, questionnaires distributed among the various cadres of Group I (A) (University Professors and College Principals), Group II (B) (University and College Associate Professors), and Group III (C) (University and College Assistant Professors). To measure the job satisfaction and work motivation 18 items survey questionnaires was administered to the selected respondents. To ensure the study more purposeful selection of institutes and respondent for data collection was made in such manner, in which the representation of teachers from various higher education institutes i.e. University teaching departments; Post graduate , Under graduate; Boys, Girls; Science, Art, Law, Commerce; Private, Govt., Semi govt.; Excellence, Autonomous and Affiliated colleges was included. The scoring was analysed on five point scale and score was simplified in percentage as per the formula of Rao (1991) i.e.
Percentage score = Mean score -1x25
Five categories of gradation were very good, fairly good, good, average and poor.
RESULT:
Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation in the Higher Education Institutions:
The Table 1and 2 fig.1and 2 under reference shows the item wise mean score and percentage of the groups A, B and C and overall job satifacition and work motivation of teachers of the Higher Education Institutions. Some of the trends noticed are given below.
The job satisfaction and work motivation of teachers in Higher Education Institutions appears to be average. The average mean score and percentage of 18 items has been calculated at 3.325 (58.12%) for group A, 3.291 (57.27%), for group B and 3.350 (58.75%) for group C,. The average mean score and percentage of the overall job satisfaction and work motivation of 18 items has been computed at 3.33 (58.17%).
The factors on which the teachers of Higher Edcution Institution scored good are overall job satisfaction (item-1), willingness to quit (Item-2), salary (item-4), co-ordination (item 9), job security (item 10), team spirit (item-13), responsibility assined, (item-14), work (item 15), tention free job (item-18).
The factors on which teachers has scored the average are working condition (item-5), performance appraisal (item 6), personnel relation (item-7), fringe benefits (item-8), chances to learn (item-11), chances to use ability (item-12), administrative decision (item-17).
As against the above, the factors on which the institutions have scored the poor are: comprised of promotion (item-3) and fairness (item-16).
Table-1 Item wise mean score, percentage score and category of Group A,B,C and Overall for Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation among Teachers of Higher Education Institutions:
|
S.No. |
Group A MS |
% Score |
CAG |
Group B MS |
% Score |
CAG |
Group C MS |
% Score |
CAG |
Overall MS |
% Score |
CAG |
|
1. |
4.080 |
77 |
FG |
4.069 |
76.744 |
FG |
3.347 |
58.680 |
AV |
3.78 |
69.52 |
G |
|
2. |
3.822 |
70.562 |
FG |
3.69 |
67.25 |
G |
3.236 |
55.9 |
AV |
3.55 |
63.83 |
G |
|
3. |
2.645 |
41.125 |
P |
3.093 |
52.325 |
AV |
2.776 |
44.095 |
P |
2.81 |
45.16 |
P |
|
4. |
3.483 |
62.095 |
G |
3.116 |
52.907 |
AV |
3.847 |
71.18 |
FG |
3.54 |
63.54 |
G |
|
5. |
3.274 |
56.85 |
AV |
3.209 |
55.232 |
AV |
3.152 |
53.817 |
AV |
3.21 |
55.22 |
AV |
|
6. |
3.209 |
55.24 |
AV |
3.069 |
51.744 |
AV |
3.194 |
54.86 |
AV |
3.17 |
54.23 |
AV |
|
7. |
3.338 |
58.45 |
AV |
3.255 |
56.395 |
AV |
3.458 |
45.75 |
P |
3.37 |
59.16 |
AV |
|
8. |
3.241 |
56.05 |
AV |
2.883 |
47.093 |
P |
3.347 |
58.68 |
AV |
3.20 |
54.93 |
AV |
|
9. |
3.548 |
63.7 |
G |
3.325 |
58.139 |
AV |
3.555 |
63.88 |
G |
3.50 |
62.42 |
G |
|
10. |
3.709 |
67.74 |
G |
3.534 |
63.372 |
G |
3.169 |
54.225 |
AV |
3.45 |
61.21 |
G |
|
11. |
3.338 |
58.45 |
AV |
3.255 |
56.395 |
AV |
3.323 |
58.098 |
AV |
3.31 |
57.80 |
AV |
|
12. |
3.377 |
59.425 |
AV |
3.186 |
54.651 |
AV |
3.347 |
58.68 |
AV |
3.32 |
57.97 |
AV |
|
13. |
3.573 |
64.342 |
G |
3.186 |
54.651 |
AV |
3.521 |
63.027 |
G |
3.46 |
61.46 |
G |
|
14. |
3.532 |
63.3 |
G |
3.348 |
58.781 |
AV |
3.591 |
64.78 |
G |
3.51 |
62.79 |
G |
|
15. |
3.786 |
69.2 |
G |
3.511 |
62.790 |
G |
3.222 |
55.55 |
AV |
3.49 |
62.29 |
G |
|
16. |
2.55 |
38.75 |
P |
2.883 |
47.093 |
P |
2.760 |
44.012 |
P |
2.72 |
42.88 |
P |
|
17. |
3.196 |
54.9 |
AV |
3.139 |
53.488 |
AV |
3.666 |
66.665 |
G |
3.37 |
59.31 |
AV |
|
18. |
3.409 |
60.225 |
G |
3.488 |
62.209 |
G |
3.805 |
70.137 |
FG |
3.59 |
64.71 |
G |
|
AV |
3.325 |
58.125 |
AV |
3.291 |
57.275 |
AV |
3.350 |
58.75 |
AV |
3.33 |
58.17 |
AV |
Table 2- Item wise Degree Distribution:
|
S.No. |
Category |
Percentage |
Item No. |
Total |
|
1. |
Very Good |
80 to 100% |
Nil |
Nil |
|
2. |
Fairly Good |
70 to 80% |
Nil |
Nil |
|
3. |
Good |
60 to 70% |
1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 |
9 |
|
4. |
Average |
50 to 60% |
5, 6, 7, 8,11, 12, 17 |
7 |
|
5. |
Poor |
Less than 50% |
3, 16 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
18 |
CONCLUSION:
The score of job satisfaction and work motivation among teachers of higher education institutions is average/ unsatisfactory (58.17 %). Results show that the most important regions for low level of job satisfaction are because of poor or average responses of the teachers against certain factors. The factors which need special attention include promotion, fairness, fringe benefits, chances to learn, working condition, performance appraisal, chances to use ability, personnei relations, administrative decision etc.With regard to the satisfaction analysis and variation in the perception, the finding reveals that there is an inverse correlation in certain factors among different cadres of teachers. Therefore, the hypothesis stands rejected.
SUGGESIONS:
The basic reason of low job satisfaction in the iinstitution is because of poor response of the employees against certain factors. The factors which need special attention include promotion, chances to learn, , working condition, performance appraisal, chances to use ability, personnei relations fringe benefits, fairness, administrative decisions etc. If these factors are patiently attended in consultation with the teachers, the marginal degradation (58.17%) can be effectively improved to make it atleast good (60%). Therefore, it may be suggested that the chances to learn, working condition, chances to use ability, personnel relations, appreciation be introduced for better performance by the individual / department, integrated training programme be introduced / adopted and schemes / projects be introduced to create chances for promotion to teachers. Attention is also needed to improve the fringe benefits already in existence to improve satisfaction.
REFERENCE:
Agrawal Rachana and Nagar Munish (2013): A study on impact of job satisfaction on faculty members on student satisfaction in Business schools in Delhi and NCR region. International Jour.of Organisational Behaviour and Management Perspectives. Vol. 2 (2) April -June pp. 322-332.
Allen N. and Meyer J. (1990): organisational socialization tactic: a longitudinal analysis of links to new comers' commitments and role orientation. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 33 (4) pp, 847-858.
Clark, E. Endrew (1995): Job satisfaction in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(2) pp. 189-217.
Davis R.H. (2001): Faculty recruitment and retention task force Report. Boulder University of Colorado.
James Fraser (2000): Job satisfaction in higher education : Examination gender in professional work settings, Sociological Inquiry. Vol. 70 No. 2.pp. 172-187.
Khan Imran (2012): Job satisfaction among college teachers. VSRD International Jour. of Business and Management Research. Vol. 2 (12) Dec.
Kreitner R. and Kinicki A. (2006): Organisational Behavior. Ma Graw Hill. NewYork .
Malik Manju (2013): A comparative study on job satisfaction between adhoc basis and regular teachers - with reference to degree collegea of Kurukshetra. International Jour. of Social Sciences and Intidisciplenary Research. Vol. 2 (4) pp.52-58.
Malik Nadeem (2013): A study on job satisfaction factors of faculty member at the University of Baluchistan, Jour. of Research in Education Vol. 21 (2) pp. 49-57.
Shamina H. (2014): Impact of Job satisfaction on professional commitment in higher education. GalaxyInternational Interdisciplinary Res.Jour.(GIIRJ) Vol. 2 (2) pp. 1-10.
Shetty Bhavana R. and Gujarthi Rajashree (2012): A study of faculty job satisfaction and it impacat on student satisfaction in management institute of Nashik district Affiliated to University of Pune. IOSR Jour of Business and Management (IOSR JMB) Vol. 3(4) (Sept. Oct.) pp. 1-8.
Tiwari Usha(2014): Jobsatisfaction among the non-teaching staff of University organization of Madhya Pradesh.Abhinav Jour, of Research in Management and Technology.Vol.3(9)pp.23-27
Received on 02.09.2014
Revised on 18.09.2014
Accepted on 25.09.2014
© A&V Publication all right reserved
Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 5(3): July-September, 2014, 270-274