20033

...



...





....

...
4

...
...
5


.



.

.
:


.


6 .










:

2

6

8

8

9
10


11
:

13

13

267

33

38

48
:

50

50
50


55
56


56

56

57

58
:

60

66

69

70

71

72

76

81

868
:

94

98

100

101

102

103

105


107

109

111
:
113

114

121

126

b
9


1
.
50

2
.
51

3
.
51
4

52
5

52
6
53
7

54
8

.
61
9
.
62
10
.

63
11
.
64

12

.
65

13

.
67
14
.
69
)( 15
.
71
16 )(
.
71
17
.
7210
18

.
73
19 ) (LSD 74 .
20 ) (LSD 74 .
21 ) (LSD 75 .
22
.
76
23
.
77
24 ) (LSD 78 .
25 ) (LSD 78 .
26 ) (LSD 79
27 ) (LSD 79
28 ) (LSD 80 .
29 ) (LSD 80 .
30
.
81
31
.

82
32 ) (LSD 83 .
33 ) (LSD 83 .
34 ) (LSD 84 .
35 ) (LSD 84 .
36 ) (LSD 84 .
37 ) (LSD 85 .
38 ) (LSD 85 .
39
.
8611
40

.
87
41
) (LSD .
88
42
) (LSD .
89
43
) (LSD .
89
44
) (LSD .
90
45
) (LSD .
91
46
) (LSD .
92
12


1
.
127
2
.
135
3

13613

)

.

2002-2003 ) (1046 .
) (302
) (%30 .

:
) (28. ) (4514 .

) Alpha
(Chronbach
.
:
.1
:
) (75.5% .
) (68.3% .
)(%67.2 .
)(%66.4 .
) (64% 15 .
.2

.
.3

) (%78.6 .
.4

.
:

.

16 .


17

:


)(

)
1986 16).

-
-

).(1996
) (1993


.

18



).(1990
) (1982

.



)
1985).







) 19 .(1984

 (1992)
.



.





)1988
.(136







)20 .(2001








.

.



)
.(1995





21





).(1986

 .
) (1984


.


.
:

.
. 22

.
:
.1 - -

.
.2
.
.3
.
.4 ) :

.
.5

.
:

)23 .(1995






:
.1
.2
.3

.4 :


:
:
.1
24 .
.2

.
.3 ) :
(
.
.4
.
:
:
.1 ) ( = 0.05

.
.2 ) ( = 0.05

.
.3 ) ( = 0.05

25.
.4 ) ( = 0.05

.
.5 ) ( = 0.05

.
.6 ) ( = 0.05

.
:
:
.1 : 2003/2002.
.2 : .
.3 :

.
.4 : 26.
:
:Job Commitment

)
1990).
: .
:Job Satisfaction

).(1996: 61
:


.
:
.
:


27 .


28

:


)(

)
1986 16).

-
-

).(1996
) (1993


.

29



).(1990
) (1982

.



)
1985).



) 30 .(1984
(1992)
.



.





)1988
.(136







)31 .(2001








.

.



)
.(1995





32


).(1986

.
) (1984


.


.
:

.
. 33

.
:
.6 - -

.
.7
.
.8
.
.9 ) :

.
.10

.
:

)34 .(1995






:
.5
.6
.7

.8 :


:
:

 .5
35 .
.6
.
.7 ) :
(
.
.8
.
:
:
.7 ) ( = 0.05

.
.8 ) ( = 0.05

.
.9 ) ( = 0.05

36.
.10 ) ( = 0.05

.
.11 ) ( = 0.05

.
.12 ) ( = 0.05

.
:
:
.5 : 2003/2002.
.6 : .
.7 :

.
.8 : 37.
:
:Job Commitment

)
1990).
: .
:Job Satisfaction

).(1996: 61
:


.

 :
.
:

38 .


39

:
:






).(Carry, et.al., 1986
) (Porter, et.al., 1974


:
. .
. .
. 40 .
) (Morris and Sherman, 1981

)( .
:
. .
. .
. .
:



).(2003


.

).(Gregersen and Stewart, 1992
) (Curry, et.al., 1986

 41
) (Porter et.al., 1974
.
) (Luthans, 1992

.



42 .
:




) (Steers ) (1977

:
)(1


.

.
.
.

.


.

43 .
. :

 ) (George and others, 1999

:
.1 (Effective Commitment) :

.
.2 (Continuous Commitment) :


.



(George & others, 1999).

)
199744).
:
.1 :
.
.2 :
).(1996
:
) (Tarter, & Hoy, 1989
:
.1 :




) (Reyes, 1989


.
) (Friedman, 1991 :

45 .
.2 :


) (Wood and Jantzi 1994


.
.3 :

) Wood and Jantzi
(1994


) (Rozenholtz, 1990
.
.4 :


46




.
) (Rozenholtz, 1990

.

. ) (Goladaraci,1992

.
:
) (Mowday & Steers, 1979

:
.1 .
.2 .
.3 47 .
:
) (Morale

) (Feelings ) (Attitudes
) (Sentiments
).(1979


) (Intangible
) (Good morale





.

)Steers, 1977). 48
:

"
" ) (1986
:
.1 :

 .
.2 : :
. .
.
.
.3 :




49 .
.4 :

.

.
:

) (2003 ) (1998
:
.1 :


) .(1989




).(1990
.2 50 :





(Davis and Newstrom, 1985).





).(1998
.3 :
"

"
""
""
(Davis and Newstrom, 1985).
.4 51 :

 ) (Rozenhottz, 1990



:
.
) (Marsh & Mannari, 1977
)
1990).


.
.5 :


.


).(2003
.6 52 :




(Hickman and Silva, 1984).






.
:
:






)53 .(1994

) (1990



.


).(1990
) (Hoppock, 1935

.

)54 .(1983
) (Smith et.al., 1969


) (

.

) .(1982
) (Hoy & Miskel, 1978
40 ) (1935-1975
) (%8%- 10


)
1989).
:
:

) (Smith, et.al., 1969
55 .
) (Davis and Newstrom 1977


.
) (1998 ) Herbert,
(1980
) (1980


.


) (1983


).(1992
:

 )(1993
56

.


.
) (Maslow theory


.
)(

)(


).(1996
)( ) ....(



57


).(1976

) (Satisfied people
) .(1995
:

) (Hygiene factors

) (Motivational factors
) (Motivation Hygiene Theory

:
.1


.
.2
58
) (Motivational factors
).(1990



).(1997
) (Vroom, 1964
) (




) .(1996
:



:

... . 59


).(1996



60 .
:
:
.1 )( .
.2 .
: )( :
):(March & Mannari, 1977
"
"




.
):(Morris & Sherman, 1981
" "
) (506

61 .
):(Kingchan Ananchai, 1985
"


.
):(1987
"

:
.1
.
.2

 .
.3 .



62 .
):(1988


.
):(1989
) (1989 "
" ) (91



.
):(1990
"




63 .
(Reyes and Imber, 1992):
"


) (472 .
):(1995
"
" ) (200

:


.
):(1997


) (320 64 .


.
):(1999
"
" ) (143

 83.85%
) (%86.1

.
):(2003
"
"

) (363 :
.1
.
.2 65 .
.3
.
:

)(Perry, 1977



.
:
):(1983
" -
.
) (244


66 :
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
.4 .
.5 .
.6 .
.7 .
.8 .
.9 .

.
):(1982
"
"



67
) (230
.
):(Carengie Foundation, 1985


) (%40

) (%30

.
):(1985
"
"



.
):(1988


68



.
):(1989
"
"
.
) (11


.




.


69 .
):(1989
"
" ) (549


.
:
.1 .
.2 .
.3
.
.4

 .
):(1990
"
"
) (255


70

.
):(1990
"
"

)(623


.
):(Glick, 1991

) (253
) (%63
.
):(1992
"
.

71 .
:
.1

.2 ) ( = 0.05
)
(
) (63


.
(Parmer and East, 1993):
" ) (12
)(
Paule Spector
) (434

.
)Bruner, 1994): 72
"
"

.

 ):(1995


) (278




.
):(1995

) (63



73

.
):(Gillett, 1997
) (1996

) (%86 ) (%85

) (%52.2
) (%80 .
):(1998


) (%98 ) (%40
) (%57 :
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
.4 74 .
.5 .


.
):(1999



) (118 ) (61 ) (58
.


75 .
:




.





.
76




77


.
:

.
:

) (1 )(1046
).(2002-2003
)(1

315 217 96 282 57 79 1046

:
) (302
:
) (%30 78

) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7
.
)(2

268 88.7

34 11.3

302 100

) (268 ) (88.7
) (34 )(11.3
)(3

148 49.0

154 51.0

302 100

) (154 ) (51.0
) (184 ) (49.0 7980 .
)(4


27 8.9
52 17.2
106 35.1
33 10.9
84 27.8
302 100

) (27 ) (8.9
) (52 ) (17.2
. ) (106
) (35.1 ) (33
) (10.9 ) (84
) (27.8 .
)(5


93 30.8 5
82 27.2 5-8
39 12.9 9-12
88 29.1 13
302 100 81

) (5 ) (93
) (30.8 ) (5 8
) (82 ) (27.2 .
) (9 12 ) (39 ) (12.9
) 13 ( ) (88 ) (29.1

 .
)(6


240 79.5
38 12.6
24 7.9
302 100

) (240 ) (79.5
) (38 ) (12.6
) (24 ) (7.9
82 .
)(7


112 27.1
74 24.5
29 9.6
- 31 10.3
23 7.6
33 10.9
302 100

) (112
) (27.1 . ) (74
) (24.5
) (29 ) (9.6
) (31
) (10.3 . ) (23
) (7.6
) (33 ) (10.9 83 .
:
:
:

:
.
:
:
.1 :
) (28
) ( " ) "(1

) (1998 ) (1990.
.2 :
) (40 :
.1 .
.2 84.
.3 .

 .4 .
.5 .
)
( " ) "(1
) (1990 ) (1999
) (1988.
:

) (2

.

) (%80 .
:

) (%94 ).(%77
85 :
: :
: . : . : .
: 5 5-8 9-12 13 .
: .
: - .
: :

.
:
:
86 .
. . ).(SPSS
:

) (SPSS :
. . )( .Independent-t-test .One Way ANOVA ) (LSD 87 .

 88





) ( SPSS
:
:


) (8 .
:
%50 . 50% %59.9 . 60% %69.9 70% %79.9 . 80% 8990 .)( :
)(8

1
.
3.06 1.27 61.3

2
.
3.70 0.98 74.0

4.29 0.85 85.8

3 .

4
.
3.24 1.02 64.7

5
.
3.24 1.08 64.7

6
.
3.28 1.00 65.7

7

3.50 0.95 70.0

8
.
3.02 1.08 60.5
3.42 0.59 68.3
) (3
) (2 7
) (1 4 5 6 8
91 .
)( :
)(9

1

3.96 0.81 79.3

2
.
3.77 0.87 75.5

3
.
4.23 0.79 84.6


4
.
4.02 0.93 80.4


3.59 0.88 71.9
.
5

6
.
3.67 0.87 73.3

7

.
3.64 0.87 72.8

8
.
3.30 1.00 66.1

3.77 0.55 75.5

) (3 4
) (1 2 5 6 7 ) (8

92 .
)( :
)(10

3.51 1.06 70.2

.
1

2
.
3.33 1.09 66.6

3

.
3.43 1.11 68.7

4
.
3.48 1.16 69.7

5
.
3.47 1.08 69.4

3.07 1.12 61.3

.
6
3.05 1.01 60.9
7 .

8
.
3.56 1.02 71.2

9
.
3.05 1.16 61.0

10
.
3.67 0.99 73.4

3.36 0.78 67.2

) (1 8 10
) (2 3 4 5 6 7 9
93 .
)( :
)(11

1
.
3.21 1.07 64.2

2
.
2.85 1.09 57.1
3.55 1.08 71.0
.
3
3.15 1.14 63.0
.

4

5
.
3.02 1.14 60.3

6
.
3.42 1.02 68.5

3.2 64

) (3
) (1 4 5 6 ) (2

.
94
)( :
)(12

1
.
2.84 1.13 56.9

2
.
2.89 1.13 57.8

3
.
2.88 1.17 57.6
" "
4
" , , ".
2.80 1.05 56.1

5
.
3.01 1.09 60.2

6
.
2.52 1.05 50.3
2.58 1.07 51.5
.
7

8
.
2.84 0.73 56.7
3.32 0.56 66.4

) (1 2 3 4 6 7 8
) (5
95 .
:


) (13 .
:
%50 . 50% %59.9 . 60% %69.9 70% %79.9 . 80% 96 . )(13

1.

.
4.28 0.74 85.6
.2 )(
.
4.67 0.54 93.3
.3 4.02 0.78 80.3 .
.4


4.28 0.64 85.6
.5 4.72 0.52 94.4 .
.6

 .
4.34 0.85 86.8
.7

.
4.73 0.55 94.6
.8
.
4.78 0.53 95.6
.9

4.13 0.87 82.5

.10

.
3.67 1.02 73.4
.11
.
4.45 0.57 88.9
.12

.
3.13 1.07 62.6
.13 4.71 0.56 94.2 .
.14 ,
.
4.55 0.64 91.1
.15
.
3.09 1.13 61.7
.16

97 3.94 0.76 78.8
.

.17
.
3.02 1.30 60.4
.18

.
3.33 1.13 66.6
.19

.
4.25 0.95 85.0

 .20
.
4.13 0.82 82.6
.21

.
4.23 0.81 84.5
.22
.
4.22 0.68 84.4
.23
.
3.08 1.14 61.6
.24
.
2.19 1.11 43.7

.25
.
3.25 1.18 65.1
.26

.
4.08 0.79 81.7
.27
.
4.36 0.73 87.2
.28
.
2.29 1.14 45.8

3.93 0.30 78.5

(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14
(19 20 21 22 26 27 )10
(16 ) (12 15 17 18 23 25 98
) (24 28
.
:

)(14
.
)(14


)(
0.389** 0.001
**0.389
0.001
0.318** 0.001

 **0.332
0.001
**0.211
0.001
**0.395
0.001

99 .
:
) ( = 0.05

.
) (
. Independent -t- test ): (15
)(15
)(

) = ( 268 ) = (34 )(

3.41 0.602 3.43 0.496 0.148- 0.88
3.77 0.559 3.75
0.463 0.188 0.85
3.36 0.793 3.31 0.674 0.353 0.72
3.18 0.787 3.33 0.26 0.576 1.109-
2.81 0.752 3.00 0.14 0.549 1.450-
3.31 0.572 3.37 0.56 0.429 0.581-

3.93 0.305 3.87 0.234 1.123 0.26
* ) (0.05 )( ). (1.96
)( )(

) ( = 0.05
)100101 .(15
:
) ( = 0.05

.
) (
. Independent -t- test ): (16
)(16
)(

) = ( 148 ) = (154 )(

3.42 0.541 3.41 0.637 0.133 0.89
3.84 0.513 3.70 *0.574 2.232 0.02

* 3.52 0.702 3.20 0.821 3.562 0.001

3.26 0.674 3.14
0.844 1.393 0.16
2.84 0.728 2.82
0.742 0.266 0.82
3.37 0.495 3.25
0.607 1.893 0.06

3.89 0.274 3.95 0.319
1.6580.09
* ) ( = 0.05 )( ). (1.96
)( )(
102
)=
0.05103).
:
) ( = 0.05

.

One Way ANOVA ) (18 )(17
:
)(17

3.60 0.74 3.43 0.66 3.35 0.52 3.34 0.64 3.45 0.53

3.62 0.87 3.74 0.47 3.73 0.51 3.68 0.55 3.92 0.46

3.27 0.92 3.21 0.76 3.23 0.81 3.40 0.73 3.62 0.65

3.35 0.97 3.19 0.80 3.12 0.73 3.18 0.79 3.26 0.70

3.21 0.64 2.89 0.79 2.74 0.65 2.88 0.75 2.77 0.78
3.41 0.72 3.29 0.58 3.23 0.54 3.30 0.56 3.40 0.48
3.99 0.46 3.99 0.26 3.90 0.27 3.93 0.24 3.87 0.29
104
)(18

)(
*
1.593 4 0.398 1.142 0.33
103.572 297 0.349
105.165 301

2.878 4 0.719 *2.435 0.04

87.761 297 0.295
90.638 301

8.828 4 2.207 *3.758 0.005

174.402 297 0.587
183.230 301

1.638 4 0.409
0.693 0.59

175.509 297 0.591
177.146 301

5.363 4 1.341 *2.539 0.04

156.842 297 0.528
162.205 301

1.597 4 0.399
1.289 0.27
92.026 297 0.310
93.623 301
0.684 4 0.171

1.936 0.10

26.241 297 0.088
26.925 301
* ) ( = 0.05 )( ).(1.96
)( )(
105

).( = 0.05
) (LSD
)(19) (20) (21 .
)(19
) (LSD

* 0.12- 0.11- 0.06- 0.3 0.009 0.05 0.18-

*0.049- 0.18
*0.23
* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . )(20
) (LSD

0.05 0.03
*0.13- 0.35* 0.02- 0.19- 0.40
*0.16- 0.38
0.21106

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . )(21
) (LSD

0.31
*0.47
0.32
*0.43

0.15 0.01 0.12

0.14- 0.03
0.11

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( .107
:
) ( = 0.05

.

One Way ANOVA ) (23 )(22

:
)(22


5 5 -8 9 12 13

3.47 0.59 3.44 0.60 3.33 0.60 3.35 0.56

3.85 0.56 3.85 0.50 3.61 0.55 3.68 0.54

3.64 0.74 3.40 0.74 3.04 0.79 3.16 0.74

3.39 0.78 3.23 0.67 2.99 0.78 3.05 0.78

2.86 0.72 2.99 0.79 2.67 0.66 2.72 0.69

3.44 0.54 3.38 0.56 3.13 0.53 3.19 0.54 108
3.84 0.32 3.90 0.29 4.01 0.24 3.98 0.27
)(23

)(
*

 0.981 3 0.327 0.936 0.42

104.183 298 0.350
105.165 301

* 2.882 3 0.961 3.262 0.02

87.757 298 0.264
90.638 301

* 15.178 3 5.059 8.972 0.001

168.051 298 0.564
183.230 301

* 7.042 3 2.347 4.112 0.007

170.105 298 0.571
177.146 301

* 4.368 3 1.456 2.749 0.04

157.837 298 0.530
162.205 301

* 4.631 3 1.544 5.170 0.002

88.991 298 0.299
93.623 301
* 1.175 3 0.392 4.531 0.004
25.750 298 0.0864
26.925 301
* ) ( = 0.05 )( ).(1.96
)( )(

) ( = 0.05 109
) (LSD
. )110(24) (25) (26) (27 (28) (29
)(24
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
5

************ 0.001- 0.23* 0.17

* *********** 0.23* 0.17 5- 8
*********** 0.06 9-12 13

***********
* ).( = 0.05

 :
) 5 9 12 ( 5. ) 5 13 ( 5.. 5 8 ) 9 12 - (5 - 8
)5 - 8 13 ( 5 8. )(25
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
* *********** 0.23* 0.60* 0.48 5
* *********** 0.36* 0.24 5- 8
*********** 0.11 9-12 13 ***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) 5 5-8 ( 5. ) 5 9 12 ( 5111. ) 5 13 ( 5.. 5 8 ) 9 12 - (5 8
. 5 - 8 ) 13 - (5 8
)(26
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
* *********** 0.15 0.39* 0.33 5
*********** 0.24 0.18 5- 8
*********** 0.05 9-12 13 ***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) 5 9 12 ( 5. ) 513 - ( 5. )(27
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
*********** 0.12- 0.19 5
0.14
* *********** 0.32* 0.27 5- 8
*********** 0.04 9-12***********
13
* ).( = 0.05
:
. 5 8 ) 9 12 112- (5 8
. 5 8 ) 13 - (5 8
)(28
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
* *********** 0.05 0.31* 0.25 5
* *********** 0.25* 0.19 5- 8
*********** 0.06 9-12 13 ***********

* ).( = 0.05
:
) 5 9 12 ( 5. ) 5 13 ( 5. ) 5 8 9 12 ( 5 - 8. ) 5 8 13 ( 5 - 8. )(29
) (LSD
5 5- 8 9-12 13
* *********** 0.05- 0.16*- 0.13 5 *********** 0.108- 0.07 5- 8 *********** 0.03 9-12
13 ***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) 5 9 12 ( 9 12. ) 5 13 ( 13 113 . :
) ( = 0.05

.
Way
One ANOVA ) (31 )(30
.
)(30

3.34 0.59 3.63 0.57 3.76 0.35

3.71 0.57 3.92 0.41 4.07 0.29

3.29 0.80 3.52 0.65 3.82 0.44

3.11 0.77 3.45 0.67 3.68 0.51

2.77 0.73 2.96 0.73 3.20 0.56

3.24 0.56 3.50 0.47 3.71
0.29
3.90 0.29 4.04 0.28 3.96
0.29
114
)(31

)(
*
* 5.847 2 2.923 8.801 0.001
99.318 299 0.332
105.165 301

* 3.836 2 1.918 6.606 0.002

86.803 299 0.290
90.638 301

* 7.415 2 3.707 6.305 0.002

175.815 299 0.588
183.230 301

* 9.759 2 4.880 8.716 0.001

167.387 299 0.560
177.146 301

* 4.752 2 2.376 4.512 0.012

157.453 299 0.527
162.205 301

* 6.105 2 3.052 10.428 0.001

87.518 299 0.293
93.623 301
* 0.711 2 0.356 4.057 0.018
26.213 299 0.087
26.925 301
* ) ( = 0.05 )( ).(1.96
)( )(

) (0.05 115
) (LSD )(32) (33) (34) (35) (36
) (37) (38 .
)(32
) (LSD


* *********** 0.28*- 0.41 *********** -0.13
***********

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . )(33
) (LSD

* *********** 0.20*- 0.35 *********** -0.15
***********

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( 116 . ) ( 117 . )(34
) (LSD

* *********** 0.23- 0.53 *********** -0.29
***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . )(35
) (LSD

* *********** 0.33*- 0.56 *********** -0.22
***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . )(36
) (LSD

* *********** 0.18- 0.43 *********** -0.24
***********
* ).( = 0.05
118 :
) ( . )(37
) (LSD

* *********** 0.25*- 0.46 *********** -0.21

***********
* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . )(38
) (LSD

*********** 0.14*- 0.06 ***********
0.08
***********

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( 119 . :
) ( = 0.05

.
Way
One ANOVA ) (40 ) (39
.
)(39

3.30 0.59 3.45 0.55 3.76 0.52 3.66 0.53 3.25 0.54 3.56 0.66

3.65 0.58 3.85 0.47 4.13 0.37 3.68 0.54 3.83 0.41 3.71 0.65

3.16 0.82 3.49 0.68 3.91 0.61 3.24 0.81 3.36 0.64 3.37 0.77

2.95 0.76 3.33 0.69 3.71 0.61 3.01 0.74 3.23 0.63 3.44 0.84

2.84 0.75 2.64 0.73 3.42 0.53 2.71 0.68 2.72 0.74 2.89 0.59
3.18 0.58 3.35 0.47 3.78 0.44 3.20 0.51 3.28 0.47 3.40 0.59
3.92 0.27 3.87 0.32 3.90 0.26 3.99 0.20 3.93 0.29 3.99 0.40 120

 )(40

)(
*
* 6.438 5 1.288 3.860 0.002
98.727 296 0.334
105.165 301

6.240 5 1.248 *4.377 0.001

84.399 296 0.285
90.638 301

15.123 5 3.025 *5.326 0.001

168.106 296 0.568
183.230 301

18.930 5 3.786 *7.083 0.001

158.217 296 0.568
177.146 301

13.409 5 2.682 *5.335 0.001

148.796 296 0.503
162.205 301

9.214 5 1.843 *6.462 0.001

84.409 296 0.285

 93.623 301
0.518 5 0.104 1.161 0
32.

26.407 296 0.089

26.925 301
* ) ( = 0.05 )( )121 . (1.96
)( )(

) ( = 0.05
) (LSD )(41) (42) (43) (44) (45
) (46 .
)(41
) (LSD

******* 0.14- 0.45*- 0.060.048
*0.26* ******* 0.310.085 0.19
0.11* ******* 0.39* 0.50
0.19
*******

0.11
0.20
******** 0.31*******

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( .122123
)(42
) (LSD

******* 0.19*- 0.47*- 0.025- 0.18- 0.06 ******* 0.27*- 0.17 0.017 0.13
* ******* 0.45* 0.29* 0.41
******* 0.15- 0.03
******* 0.11
*******

* ).( = 0.05
:

 ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . )(43
) (LSD

******* 0.33*- 0.75*- 0.07- 0.19- 0.21 ******* 0.42*- 0.25
0.13 0.12

******** 0.67* 0.55* 0.54

******* 0.11- 0.13

******* 0.011*******

* )). 124 = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . )(44
) (LSD

* ******* 0.38*- 0.76*- 0.06- 0.27- 0.49 ******* 0.37*- 0.31* 0.10 0.11 ******* 0.69* 0.48* 0.26
* ******* 0.21- 0.43 ******* 0.21*******

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( 125. ) ( . ) ( )(45
) (LSD

******* 0.19 0.57*- 0.12 0.12 0.04-

 ******* 0.77*- 0.06- 0.07- 0.24* ******* 0.70* 0.69* 0.53

******* 0.005- 0.17 ******* 0.16*******

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( .126
)(46
) (LSD

* ******* 0.17*- 0.60*- 0.02- 0.09- 0.21* ******* 0.430.15 0.07
0.04* ******* 0.58* 0.50* 0.38

******* 0.07- 0.19

******* 0.11*******

* ).( = 0.05
:
) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( .127


128

:

:
: :
) (%75.5


) (%80

) (%85 .


129







.
) (1994


.
) (1991

.
: :

) (%68
) (8 5 ) (%88 )130 .(%75









.
) (1990




.

 : :


) (%67
131 .




.
: :



).(%66.4



.
) (1996



.
: 132 :

) (34
) (%71 ) (%64

) (34


.
) (10

.
:

) (12





133

)(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 26 27
) (12 15 17 18 23 25 ) (10 16
) (24 28

 ) (%78.6
.





.


.




134 .
) (1990 ) Reyes & Imber,
(1992 ) (2003
) (1987

.
) (1988


.
:

.

.






) ( 1991 135



.





.
) (1990


.
:
) ( = 0.05

) (T-test
%56
136 .%26


.

.
) (1990


.
) (1989




.
:

) ( = 0.05


.
) (T-test

137

.



.

.
) (2003

.
:
) ( = 0.05



138 .

)( )(
) (234


) ( LSD

.





.

.


.




139 .
) (1990 )(2003

) (1988 ) (1989



140 .
:
) = 0.05
(


.


)( )(



) ( = 0.05

) ( LSD .



.




.

) (5 ) (5-8 .


141 .

) (5




.


) (5-8

.

 ) (5 ) (5-8



.

) (9-12 ) (13 .





142


.
) (1993 ) (1988

) (Fegan, 1986


1989 1990

(March, and Mannari , 1969).

:
) ( = 0.05
.


)( )(

LSD :






.

143 .




.





.




.




.




.


144 .
) (1990



) (1990 ) (1992

.
:
) ( = 0.05

.

)( )(
,


) (0.05 LSD

:

 .


145 .

.

.


.


.



146


147 .
:
:

.

.
.
.

.

 .
148 .

.
.

.
149

150
:
) (1982 : :
.
(1993) .
.
) (1992 .
) (1989
.
) (1998 .
/ (1993).
151.
) .(1990
.
) (1986 .
)(1983 . )" (1983 - "
. .63-89
) (1982 .30- 78
) (1988 .
) (1984 .
- ) (1988

 (3(1 . .135-220
) (1984 : 152 .
) (1992
.
) (1985
13(3) 93-74.
) (1990 .
) (1998
.
) (1990 (17) . .229-249
) .(1996
.
(1993)
(1) 153 .109-134:
) (1995
4(11).
) (1983 (4(36
..58-74:
) (1999
.
) (1983
.
(1996) .
) (1989 .
) (1996 154 .
) (1994 (5(22 . 2167-2195 : .
) (1995 22(5)2195-2167.
) (1992 .7(2)11-36
) (2003
.
- ) (1982

 .
) (1989 .
) (1997 : .
) (2001 : .
) (1987 (11 (2.155 .5-32:
) (1984 .
. . .) (1990 (23(1 ..78-91 :
1997) : )( 1. .13-22
) (1995
.
) (1995 (2(12 ..30-31:
) (1998 - .
: ) (1990
.
) (1996 156 .
)( ) (1999 78..39-68:
) (1995
.
) (1996
9(5) 93-57.
) (1981 :

118 .
(1979) .
) (1985 . . ) (1986 157 .
:
Anchani, King chan, (1986) "Communication, job satisfaction andorganizational commitment at business college faculty" Dissertation
.Abstract International. Vol.46. No-12. p.3774
.Berry, J. L., (1977) Research in Higher Education, 7: 269 280Bruner, M., C., (1994). The overall job satisfaction of faculty -

members in selected rural community colleges. (Ed. D. East Texas

,(State University, IN. Dissertation Abstract International.55(2
.A-187
Carry L., Cooper and Denek Tomington, (1979) "Strategies for .Relieving Stress at work, "Personnel Management", Vol. 11. No.6
;Carengi Foundation for the Advancement of teaching change, 1985 .No. 4, 31-34 :17
Colardarci, T., (1992). Teacher's of efficiency and commitment to .teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-373
Davis, Keith and Newstrom, John, (1985). Human behavior at work: organizational behavior, 7
th
ed. McGrow- Hill Book
Company, New York. 158
Friedman, L., A., (1991). High and low burnout school culture ,aspects of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research
.325-332 ,(6)84
George, Jenniffer M., and Gareth R. Jones. (1999). Organizational .behavior, 2Ed, Addison- Wesley Publishing company, Inc
Gillett, K., et. Al, (1997) Administrators in north Carolina community colleges: A comparative study by gender Eric, ED
.49073
Glick, N., L., (1991). Satisfaction among academic administration at selected American colleges and universities Dissertation Abstract
.International, 52(2), 736A
Gregersen H., and Stewart (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign operation. Academy of Management
.Journal, 35(1): 65-90
Herbert, G., (1980). Personal human resources management I .Illihois: Richard lewin, INC
Hickman, Craig. And Silva, Michael. (1984). Creating excellence .American Library, New York
Hoppock, R., (1935). Job Satisfaction, Harper. New York. 159 :Hoy, W.,K., & Miskel, C.,W., (1978). Educational administration theory into practice (5
th
.ed). McGraw- Hill, New York
Wood Leith, K and Jantzi, D., (1994). Transformational leadership and teachers' commitment to change. In Richard Sager and Bruce
G. Barnett (eds) the principal a transformed leader. California
.Corwing, press, Inc
,Luthans, Fred. (1992). Organizational behavior , 6Ed, New york .McGraw Hill, Inc. 124
Marsh, Robert, and Mannari, Hirosh (1977).Organizational commitment and Turnover: A prediction Study Administrative
.Science quarterly. Vol 22, P.p57-75
Maslow, A., (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological .Review, vol. 50, 370-396
Morris, J., and J., Sherman, (1981). Generaliz ability of an organizational commitment model, Academy of Managment

.Journal, 24: 512-525

Mowday, Richard T.,& steers, Richard M., (1979). The measurement ,of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14
160 .247 -224
(Porter, L., steers, R., Mowday, R., and Boulian, P., (1974 Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction, and Turnover Among
.Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, P.59
Petty, G., and Hatcher, L., M., (1991). Job satisfaction of faculty .from technical institutes community colleges, and universities
.Journal of Studies in Technical Centers 13(4) 361-367
Reyes, Pedro, Imber Michaed (1992). Teachers perceptions of the Fairness of their work and their commitment, job satisfaction, and
morale: implications for teacher evaluation, Journal of Personal
.Examination in Education, V5, n3p. 291-302
Rozenholtz, S., (1990). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: teacher induction programs. The
.Elementary School Journal, 89, (4), 421-439
Rozenholtz, S., J., and Simpsom, C., (1990). Workplace condition and the rise and fall of teacher' commitment. Sociology of
.Educations, 63, 244-257
Shuman, J., T., (1982). The relationship between organizational climate, leader behavior, and teacher job jatisfaction in government
secondary schools for boys in Ramallah district. Unpublished thesis
of Master of Arts in Education, Birzeit University. 161
Steers R., M., (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational ,commitment to organization, Administrative Sciences Quarterly
.143-150 :22
Smith, P., Kendall. L., and Tlullin, C., (1969) the Measurement of .satisfaction in work and retirement, Chicago: Rand Mchally
Tarter, C.,J., and Hoy, W.,K., (1989). Principal leadership and organizational commitment: the principal must deliver. Planning
.and Changing, 1(3), 130-139
Vroom, V., (1964). Work and motivation. John wiley & Sons, New York. 162
163

(1)



,
"
"
.

 ,
.

164
:
) (X :
: ) (
) (
: ) ( ) (
: ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
: 5-8 ) (
) (
13 ) (
9-12 ) (
: ) (
: ) ( ) (
) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 165
) (x :
:

1

.
) (

)(
2

.

3
.

4

) (


5
.

6
.

7

.

8
.

9


10

.
166

11
.

12

.
.
13
,
14
.

15
.


16


.

17
.

18

.

19

.

20
.

21

.
167

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.


26

.
27
.

28
.
168
:

1
.
2
.
3

4
.
5
.
6
.
7 .
8 .
9
.
10
.
11
.
12

 .
13
.
14
.
15
.

16
.
17
.
18

.
19
.
20 .
21 "
" " , ,
".
22
.
23
.
24
.
25
.
26
.
27
.

169

 28

.

29170
.

30
.
31
.
33

.
34
.
35
.
36 .
37
.
38
.
39
.
40
.
41
.
42

.
43

.
45
.
171
172
(2)









173
174175176177178179180 (3)
An- Najah National University
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Level of professional belonging and job satisfaction and
the relationship between them among the teaching
staff in the Palestinian Universities
Prepared by
Intisaar Mohammed Taaha Salaameh
Supervised by
Dr. Chassan Hussein Al-Hilou
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Educational Management, Faculty of Graduate Studies, at AnNajah
National University, Nablus, Palestine 181182
Level of professional belonging and job satisfaction and the relationship
between them among the teaching staff in the Palestinian Universities
Prepared by
Intisaar Mohammed Taaha Salaameh
Supervised by
Dr. Chassan Hussein Al-Hilou
Abstract
This study aims at identifying the level of professional belonging and
job satisfaction and the relationship between them among the teaching staff
in the Palestinian universities it also aims at determining the role of the
variables (sex, academic qualification, academic rank, administrative
experience, position, the university at the level of professional belonging
and job satisfaction among the members of the teaching staff in the
.Palestinian universities
The population of the study consist of all the members of the
-teaching staff in the Palestinian universities in the academic year 2002
.of 1046 member of the teaching staff ,2003
The sample of the study consisted of (302) members, taken randomly

.in simple random sample with the ratio of (30%) of the study population
To accomplish the aim of the study, the researcher employed two
questionnaires, which the developed in accordance with four studies and
educational literature that are related the subject of study, namely: 183
a- A questionnaire for measuring professional belonging, consisting of
.items (28)
.b- A questionnaire of job satisfaction, consisting of (45) items
The researcher was assured of the validity of the two questionnaires
by way of arbitration validity; the researcher distributed the questionnaires
on a number of arbitrators in Al- Najah National university, who are
specialized in administration and education. The researcher determined the
,reliability of the tools by use of chromatic alpha for internal consistency
for analyzing the questioner of the study and testing the hypotheses, the
.researcher used a set of statistical procuresses
:Conclusions
:The most important concussion, of the study were the following
Ranking of percentages of responses on the fields of job satisfaction .1
among the numbers of the teaching staff in the Palestinian
:universities were as follows
Feeling of the officials towards the relationship towards the .commissions, the ration of responses is (75.5%) i,e. a high ratio
Feeling of the officials toward, nature of work or job, the ratio of responses is (68.8%)i.e. medium ratio. 184
Feeling of the officials towards methods of supervision, the ratio of .responses is (67.2%),i.e. a median ration
Feeling of the officials towards the salaries, the radio of responses is .i.e. a medium ratio(66.4%)
.Feeling of the officials towards the system of promotion .2
the existence of a positive correlation relationship, which is .3
statistically significant between job satisfaction and professional
belonging among the members of the teaching staff in the Palestinian
universities. i.e. the mother job satisfaction increases, the more the
.professional belonging increases
the existence of a high professional belonging among the teaching .4
staff in Palestinian universities, the percentage of professional
belonging among the members of the teaching staff in the Palestinian
.universities (78.5%)i,e. a high degree
the result shows that the sex variable has no effect on the degree of .5
.job satisfaction and the professional universities
:Recommendations
The light of the results which the researchers found, she recommends
the following: 185
the necessity that ministry of education adept a plan for administrative planning , including the Palestinian universities
,sultan, to ensure the satisfaction of urgent needs of the employees
which guarantees providing of stability job, security, justice and
.objectivity
Development of systems and motives promotion so as to satisfy the ,meds and ambitions of employees fairly to spread assurance
psychological rest of the employees, and also setting up of a system

for promotions and motives of the teaching staff who obtain high
.academic qualifications and training courses