Job Satisfaction of University Staff

Fang-Mei Tai, corresponding author, National Penghu University

of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Po-Yao Chuang, Feng Chia University, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

The relationship between employee job satisfaction and employee organizational commitment is di-
rect and significant. The purpose of this study is to explore and compare the levels of job satisfaction
among staff of public and private universities in Taiwan and how they differ in their satisfaction levels
regarding salary, work environment, and others. The JSOUS Questionnaire was used to collect data from
randomly chosen university staff in randomly selected universities. Five-point Likert-type scales were
used to measure respondents’ perceptions. Descriptive and inferential statistics and computation of item
means and rankings indicated participants’ responses. t tests for independent means revealed signifi-
cantly different job satisfaction ( p < .05 ) between public and private staff. Linear Regression was used
to analyze whether there is any job element that impacts on staff’s job satisfaction. Overall job satisfac-
tion and Self-worth were most satisfied by the public university staff; Organizational decision-making and
salary welfare of job satisfactions were satisfied least by the public university staff. The private university
staff were most satisfied with interpersonal relationship and self-worth. Public university staff showed a
significantly higher job satisfaction than private staff for salary welfare and overall job satisfaction, and
in general, they showed a higher job satisfaction than private staff.
Keywords: Job Satisfaction, organizational commitment, behavior analysis, staff management, organiza-
tion behavior

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

According to Rashid and Rashid (2011), satisfaction has been extensively studied in the manage-
ment literature due to its importance to the physical and mental well-being of the employee. We know it
is a topic of major concern for many researchers and an important organizational variable that should be
understood and constantly analyzed for efficient working of any organization. Zeinabadi in 2010 stated
that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are antecedents (origin) of Organizational Citizen-
ship Behavior (OCB) of academic staff. It is recognized that education requires not only diligence but
also commitment, so it is more important to have mental commitment and loyalty than only physical
presence. University staff is the first line of contact with students and requires complex work in an in-
creasingly demanding environment. The purpose of this study was to provide empirical evidence as to the
job satisfaction levels of staff in both public as well as private universities and to determine what job fac-
tors are reliable predictors of their job satisfaction.

Significance of the Study

In 2010, Machado-Taylor, Meira Soares and Gouveia pointed out that academic staff job satisfac-
tion and motivation play an important role contributing to positive outcomes to the quality of the institu-

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 51
tions and to students’ learning. Little published research has been discovered that focuses on examining
the levels of job satisfaction among staff in either public or private universities in Taiwan. Moreover, no
research has been found that compares the levels of job satisfaction among staff between public and pri-
vate universities. In sum, the main objective to be attained for the study is to create job satisfaction, com-
mitment, involvement, motivation, and, thus, the best results for not only Taiwanese but global universi-
ties and for the students.

Definition of Terms
Staff: education board employees, refers to those dealing with the administrative affairs in univer-
sity, not faculty (teaching staff), in this study.
Job satisfaction: How content an individual is with his or her job. Scholars and human resource pro-
fessionals generally make a distinction between affective job satisfaction and cognitive job satisfaction.
Affective job satisfaction is the extent of pleasurable emotional feelings individuals have about their jobs
overall, and is different from cognitive job satisfaction which is the extent of individuals’ satisfaction
with particular facets of their jobs, such as pay, pension arrangements, working hours, and numerous
other aspects of their jobs (Wikipedia, 2012).
Commitment: The state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc. It is also known as a
pledge or an undertaking (Wikipedia, 2012).

Other researchers or professors’ definition for job satisfaction as follows:

Job satisfaction is said to be an important factor of productivity at work (Lin, 2012).
Job satisfaction refers to an individual’s positive emotional reactions to a particular job and these
reactions result from comparing the actual and present results with those that are desired or anticipated by
the individual (Oshagbemi, 1999).
Job satisfaction is an affective/emotional reaction to one’s job, that results from the incumbent’s
comparison of actual outcomes with those that are expected or desired (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992,
cited in Weiss, 2002).
Job satisfaction has been defined both as a global construct and as a concept with multiple dimen-
sions/facets (Locke, 1969, 1970; Price, 1997; Scarpello & Campbell, 1983, cited in Lund, 2003), i.e., the
overall job satisfaction as well as the satisfaction with pay, physical conditions of work, the content of
work, relations with colleagues, among others.
Job related elements, pay, promotional opportunities, supervision, relationship with co-workers, job
security and some demographic questions could be used to measure the job satisfaction levels of aca-
demic staff (Khalid, 2012). While, this study is to survey whether or not the university staff are satisfied
with eight job elements- the salary, benefit packages, working environments, duties, organizational deci-
sions, leader’s concern, social relation, self-value, overall job satisfaction (satisfaction with the institution,
the opportunity to update knowledge, the social prestige of the job).

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the job satisfaction of public staff and the
job satisfaction of private staff of universities and to explore if any relationship existing between the job
satisfaction elements and overall job satisfaction.

52 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
Impact of the Study
The Job Satisfaction of University Staff Questionnaire applied to be the base for the research is ran-
domly distributed to the population. It is designed to understand if the factors of age, gender, marital
status, education history, working environments/resources, duties, organizational decisions, leader’s con-
cern, social relations, job position, have a significant influence on overall job satisfaction. Through this
research, we anticipate a better service quality or an overall increase in performance of the educational
institutions.

Assumptions of the Study

The following assumptions were made for the purpose of this study.
1. All staff who responded to the questionnaires clearly understood the questions.
2. All respondents answered all questions presented in the survey in an honest manner and to the best of
their abilities.
3. The random selection and sampling procedures employed permit the researcher to make generaliza-
tions regarding staff in the selected higher educational institutions in central Taiwan.

Limitations of the Study

The results of this study and the generalization of those results may be limited by the following fac-
tors or conditions:
1. The population was limited to higher educational universities with staff in Taiwan.
2. The results of the study are dependent on the willingness and ability of the respondents to accurately
complete and return the survey to the researcher.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Educational institutions are professional service organizations and contribute services through their
organization’s members without exception. The relationship between employee job satisfaction and em-
ployee organizational commitment is existing and significant (Daneshfard & Ekvaniyan, 2012). In 2011
Ahmed, Usman, and Rana stated, job satisfaction also mediates (intervenes) the relationship between fac-
ets of job and citizenship behavior. Therefore, increasing the job satisfaction of the organizational mem-
bers is the only way to really enhance the service quality of the educational institutions (Tzeng, 1997). In
1992 Lin also stated that Taiwan’s domestic and foreign researchers confirmed that personal job satisfac-
tion of the organization members has played an essential role in promoting the entire performance (Lin,
1992).
Maslow (1970) raised five Need's Hierarchy in self-fulfillment; esteem, love, belongingness, safety,
and physiological needs; while, Alderfer (1972) maintained those needs between levels which are not
mutually exclusive but could be conductible simultaneously and separated the Maslow’s theory into Exis-
tence, Relatedness, and Growth (so called ERG).
Vroom’s (1964) Expectation Theory is 1. value: the level that the individual believes efforts will
bring hope’s rewards; 2. tools: the process of the individual's own efforts; 3. expectations: mentions to the
beliefs of individuals in the possibility of future performance through individual certain efforts. Werni-
mont (1972) stated that the factors that impacted job satisfaction are the individual intrapersonal factors,
and external environmental factors.

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 53
 In 1975 Seashore and Taber stated that the factors of job satisfaction can be summarized in two fac-
tors: Personal factors: demographic characteristics, personality traits, abilities, contextual, perceptual,
cognitive, and expectation. Environmental factors: including political and economic environment, profes-
sional nature, organizational environment, and work environment.
Farrell (1978) trusted that there are two types of job satisfaction factors: Worker related factors:
educational background, work experience, special training and work motivation; and job characteristics,
i.e., payroll, marginal gains, conventional, participation, integration, communication, opportunity for ad-
vancement. Herzberg (1966) held human motivation and satisfaction were controlled by two sets of fac-
tors, rather than the traditional belief that there is only ONE set of factors. He defined the contrary of the
satisfaction to be “no satisfaction”; and the opposite of dis-satisfaction was defined as “no dissatisfaction”.
Intrinsic motivating factors consist of a sense of accomplishment, a sense of reward and praise, work it-
self, responsibility, growth, and promotion development; external maintenance factors include the salary,
organized policy and management, inspecting skills, salary, interpersonal relationships, work environ-
ment, personal life, status and job security. Satisfied employees produce higher job performance as de-
bated by the plurality of early researchers and scholars. Herzberg's "health factor" of his two-factor theory
only lowers the work dissatisfaction and is unable to increase job performance; but "motivating factor"
can inspire a willingness to work and help to raise job performance.
Organ (1977) also pointed out that in some conditions, job satisfaction will affect workers perform-
ance to be good or bad. Rinehart and Short (1993) indicated that teachers' job satisfaction is related to
work environment, work involvement, morale, motivation to work, and school structure. "Job satisfaction
is the individual degrees of a positive affective orientation, negative affective oriented are not satisfied
with a positive affective work orientation (Chen, 2008). According to Chen (2008), job satisfaction ap-
plied in this study includes satisfaction with salary welfare, work environment, work characteristics, or-
ganizational decision-making, leadership care, interpersonal relationship, self worth, and overall job satis-
faction.
The above shows that influencing factors of job satisfaction of staff, teachers, and most people con-
sists of personal qualities and characteristics of the work environment, and their interactions. It is that the
factors of job satisfaction are an emotional or behavioral reaction impacted by personal internal and ex-
ternal environmental factors. Therefore, this paper studies the job satisfaction of the universities’ staff by
means of exploring the personal and environmental factors.

METHOD

Conceptual Framework and Theory

The overall framework that surrounds this paper includes exploring respectively the job satisfaction
elements of public and private universities staff and comparing the difference in job satisfaction between
staff of public vs. private universities. The composite means and standard deviations for public and pri-
vate universities staff job satisfaction elements were employed. An independent samples t test was con-
ducted to compare public and private universities staff for each job satisfaction measurement.
According to Rashid and Rashid (2011), satisfaction has been extensively studied in the manage-
ment literature due to its importance to the physical and mental well-being of the employee. We know it
is a topic of major concern for many researchers and an important organizational variable that should be
understood and constantly analyzed for the efficient working of any organization. It is recognized that
education requires not only diligence but also commitment, so it is more important to have mental com-

54 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
mitment and loyalty than only physical presence. University staff is the first line of contact with students
and requires complex work in an increasingly demanding environment. The purpose of this study was to
provide empirical evidence as to the job satisfaction levels of staff in both public and private universities
and to determine what job factors are reliable predictors of their job satisfaction. As mentioned, Rashid
and Rashid (2011) proposed satisfaction has been extensively studied in the management literature due to
its importance to the physical and mental well-being of the employee. Zeinabadi in 2010 also stated that
job satisfaction and organizational commitment are antecedents (intervenes) of Organizational Citizen-
ship Behavior (OCB) of academic staff. It is recognized that it is more important to have mental commit-
ment and loyalty than only physical presence; university staff is the first line of contact with students and
requires complex work in an increasingly demanding environment.
Job satisfaction was firstly proposed by Hoppock in 1935, so far the job satisfaction theory has ac-
cumulated quite a lot; most of them are motivating models and the common and important applied by the
questionnaire are as following:
A. Need Hierarchy Theory Maslow (1954) stated that man is an animal having needs, and the needs must
be met; otherwise the needs would control people’s behavior if failed to meet the needs.
B. Two-Factor Theory This was raised by psychologist Herzberg (1959) that staff attitudes have a deci-
sive role in job performance.
C. Three Needs Theory By McClelland et. al. (1961), who proposed a “three needs theory,” which there
are three main motives or needs in the context of the work.
D. Equity Theory Adams (1963) proposed that the staff would compare his/her “input” with “output.”
E. Expectancy Theory Vroom (1964) proposed that a tendency intensity of a certain behavior for people
to take is determined on the expectation intensity that a known result would come after some behaviors,
and on whether or not this result is attractive to the individual.
F. Discrepancy Theory Locke (1969) stated that whether a particular working trait for an employee to
satisfy/meet with or not is according to the gap between the two, “actually received”and“wish to ob-
tain”the main characteristics found from the work " ; if the gap is zero, the staff will be satisfied.
G. ERG Theory Alderfer (1972) developed and corrected Maslow’s five Need's Hierarchy into Existence,
Relatedness, and Growth Needs.
1. Existence needs: This is the lowest level of need and physiology related, such as food, water, physio-
logical safety, working salary, welfare, working conditions, and other needs. It is similar to Maslow
's physiological and safety needs of hierarchy theory.
2. Relatedness Needs: It refers to the need for social relationship of interacting with others, including
colleagues, superiors, subordinates, friends, family members and others, for mutual respect, the
sense of self-affirmation, and accredited sense. It is like Maslow's in dignity, love and accredited to
need.
3. Growth Needs: It is related to the individual's own needs, such as work could provide growth oppor-
tunities and development needs, and includes challenging, autonomy, creativity the work should
have.

The Following Research Questions and Hypotheses Guided the Study as in Fig 1.
RQ 1. What are the job satisfaction elements of public university staff?
RQ 2. What are the job satisfaction elements of private university staff?
RQ 3. What differences exist between the job satisfaction elements of public staff and the private staff of
universities?

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 55
H3-0: There are no differences between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University
Staff and the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff.
H3-1: There are differences between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff
and the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff.
RQ 4. Is there any relationship existing between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public Uni-
versity Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction?
H4-0: There is no relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff
and their Overall Job Satisfaction?
H4-1: There is a relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff
and their Overall Job Satisfaction?
RQ 5. Is there any relationship existing between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private Uni-
versity Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction?
H5-0: There is no relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University
Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction?
H5-1: There is a relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff
and their Overall Job Satisfaction?

Salary Welfare

H4-1
H5-1
Work Environment

Work Characteristics Have Relationship with

Overall Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfac-
Organizational Decision Making
tion Elements

Leadership Care No Relationship with

Overall Job Satisfaction

Interpersonal Relationship

H4-0
H5-0
Self Worth

Figure 1. Framework of This Survey

Research and Design

There was no single but multiple researches and designs encompassing the overall structure of the
paper. Validity was assured through the literature review and a critical review of the instrument. Cron-

56 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
bach’s No. of items was also used for reliability statistics. The research was executed at public and private
universities in Taiwan.
Participants. Forty randomly selected full time staff at two randomly chosen public universities
and forty randomly chosen full time staff at two randomly selected private universities participated this
research.
Materials and Procedure. The survey instrument entitled, “The Job Satisfaction of University
Staff Questionnaire”, consisting of two parts: Part 1 relates to university staff’ demographic characteris-
tics and includes items concerning staff’ age, gender, education level, years of service, and marital status;
and Part 2 consists of forty-five items within eight modified job satisfaction elements, i.e., salary welfare,
and other job satisfactions (see the enclosed English and Chinese editions) that were used to collect data
the said sample by contacting the Department Head. Permission was granted from each university to con-
duct the study at their department in advance of the study. The instrument was basically adapted from Ms.
Chen, P. Y (2008). The overall response rate was 100 percent. Responses are on a five-point Likert scale
ranging from (1) = strongly disagree to (5) = strongly agree. The salary welfare satisfaction includes
items 1-6. The work environment satisfaction includes items 7-13. The work characteristics satisfaction
includes items 14-20. Organizational decision-making satisfaction includes items 21-27. Leadership care
satisfaction includes items 28-33. Interpersonal relationship satisfaction includes items 34-38. The self-
worth satisfaction includes items 39-42. The overall job satisfaction includes items 43-45. To analyze the
results, mean, standard deviation, computation of item means and rankings indicated what respondents
considered important. t tests for independent means revealed significantly different job satisfaction ( p
< .05 ) between public staff and private staff. An independent variable is a variable that is expected to
impact the dependent variable (Zikmund, 2003). Independent variables used in the study are satisfaction
with, salary welfare, work environment, work characteristics, organizational decision-making, leadership
care, interpersonal relationships, self-worth, and overall job satisfaction. The literature review showed
that these independent variables are major determinants of job satisfaction.

RESULTS

Cronbach’s No. of items was used for reliability statistics. Within various aspects of eight job satis-
faction measurements the Cronbach’s Alpha is .783 ＞ 0.5. The study has high reliability.
The purpose of this paper was to examine and determine the job satisfaction of public staff and the
job satisfaction of private staff of universities in Taiwan. Another purpose was to compare if similarities
or differences exist in most satisfied job elements of public staff and the private staff in Taiwan. The third
purpose was to explore if there is any relationship existing between the perceived Job Satisfaction Ele-
ments of Public/Private University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction?

Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff

The composite means and standard deviations for public university staff job satisfaction elements
are presented in Table 1. Of the eight job satisfaction elements, the public university staff are most satis-
fied in Overall Job Satisfaction ( M = 4.05 ) and Self-Worth ( M = 3.84 ). Organizational Decision-
Making ( M =3.17 ) and Salary Welfare ( M = 3.26) of job satisfactions were satisfied least by the public
university staff.

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 57
 Table 1: Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff
Job Satisfaction Mean S. D. Rank
Salary Welfare 3.26 .56 7
Work Environment 3.37 .77 5
Work Characteristics 3.46 .54 4
Organizational Decision-Making 3.17 .57 8
Leadership Care 3.28 .78 6
Interpersonal Relationship 3.69 .55 3
Self-Worth 3.84 .59 2
Overall Job Satisfaction 4.05 .54 1
N = 40

Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff

The composite means and standard deviations for private university staff job satisfaction elements
are presented in Table 2. Of the eight job satisfaction elements, the private university staff are most satis-
fied in Interpersonal Relationships ( M = 3.78 ) and Self-Worth ( M = 3.76 ). Salary Welfare ( M = 2.91 )
and Organizational Decision-Making ( M = 2.96 ) of job satisfaction were satisfied least by the private
university staff.

Table 2: Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff

Job Satisfaction Mean S. D. Rank
Salary Welfare 2.91 .88 8
Work Environment 3.25 .54 5
Work Characteristics 3.69 .56 4
Organizational Decision-Making 2.96 .67 7
Leadership Care 3.22 .84 6
Interpersonal Relationship 3.78 .54 1
Self-Worth 3.76 .78 2
Overall Job Satisfaction 3.70 .83 3
N = 40

Differences in Job Satisfaction Elements between Public and Private University Staff
An independent samples t test was conducted to compare public and private university staff for
each job satisfaction measurement. The differences between public and private university staff for job
satisfaction elements are presented in Table 3. Public staff showed a significantly higher job satisfaction
than private staff for two of the job satisfaction elements. These included the Salary Welfare element, t
( 78 ) = 2.11, p = .000, and Overall Job Satisfaction element, t ( 78 ) = 2.23, p = .034. There were no sig-
nificant differences between public and private university staff’ job satisfaction for work environment,
work characteristics, organizational decision-making, leadership care, interpersonal relationships, and
self-worth satisfaction elements.

Table 3:Differences in Job Satisfaction Elements between Public and Private University Staff
Mean Mean
Styles Public Staff (N = 40 ) Private Staff (N = 40) t p
Salary Welfare 3.26 2.91 2.11 .000*
Work Environment 3.37 3.25 .82 .134
Work Characteristics 3.46 3.69 -1.86 .366
Organizational Decision-Making 3.17 2.95 1.54 .296
Leadership Care 3.28 3.22 .35 .524

58 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
 Interpersonal Relationship 3.69 3.78 -.74 .989
Self-Worth 3.84 3.76 .49 .164
Overall Job Satisfaction 4.05 3.70 2.23 .034**
*p < .05

Relationship in Perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff and their Overall
Job Satisfaction
Linear Regression analysis was used in this research question. It was found that the R-squared
ranged from 52.2 to 81% , indicating the percent variability in the dependent variable explained by each
independent variable as shown in Table 4. Salary Welfare was not significant, but all other elements were.

Table 4: Analysis of Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff

and their Overall Job Satisfaction
Standardized Coefficients β t Sig. Adjusted R Square F
Self-Worth .731 6.60 .000** .522 .000
Organizational Decision-Making .277 2.70 .010* .590 .010
Leadership Care -.755 -3.26 .002** .675 .002
Work Environment -.522 -4.83 .000** .768 .000
Work Characteristics .288 2.75 .010* .805 .010
Interpersonal Relationship -.186 -1.15 .004** .810 .004
Salary Welfare .162 1.48 .147 .810 .147
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

H4-0 The null hypothesis stated that there were no relationships between the perceived Job Satis-
faction Elements of Public University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction. However, the results from
the Table 4 showed, except for Salary Welfare, that all the other Job Satisfaction Elements were signifi-
cant, and thus the null hypothesis was partly rejected.

Relationship in Perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff and their Overall
Job Satisfaction
Linear Regression analysis was used in this research question. It was found that the R-squared
ranged from 60.2 to 78% , indicating the percent variability in the dependent variable explained by each
independent variable as shown in Table 5. Interpersonal Relationship was not significant, but all other
elements were.

Table 5: Analysis of Job Satisfaction Elements of Private University

Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction
Standardized Coefficients β t Sig. Adjusted R Square F
Self-Worth .674 6.33 .000** .602 59.940
Organizational Decision-Making .320 1.71 .000** .780 20.772
Leadership Care .320 2.22 .000** .751 23.683
Work Environment -.162 -1.52 .013* .780 20.772
Work Characteristics .022 .17 .008** .751 59.701
Interpersonal Relationship .002 .02 .118 .780 20.772
Salary Welfare -.190 -1.22 .007** .780 20.772
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 59
 H5-0: The null hypothesis stated that there were no relationships between the perceived Job Satis-
faction Elements of Private University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction. However, the results from
Table 5 showed, except for Interpersonal Relationship, that all the other Job Satisfaction Elements were
significant, and thus the null hypothesis was partly rejected.

The results of analysis of collected data and findings of the study are reported in tabular and narra-
tive form as follows Table 6:

Table 6: Summary of the Hypotheses Findings

Hypo-theses Content Statistics Method Result
H3-0: There is no difference between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of
H3-0 Public University Staff and the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Private t Test Rejected
University Staff.
H4-0: There is no relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements Partly
H4-0 Linear Regression
of Public University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction. Rejected
H5-0: There is no relationship between the perceived Job Satisfaction Elements Partly
H5-0 Linear Regression
of Private University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction Rejected

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

1. Of the eight job satisfaction elements, the public university staff were most satisfied with Overall Job
Satisfaction and Self-Worth.
2. Organizational Decision-Making and Salary Welfare of job satisfactions were satisfied least by the
public university staff.
3. Of the eight job satisfaction elements, the private university staff were most satisfied with Interper-
sonal Relationship and Self-Worth.
4. Self Worth got the same satisfied level by both the public and private university staff within the job
satisfaction element.
5. Organizational Decision-Making and Salary Welfare of job satisfactions were satisfied least by the
private university staff and which are also the same as the least satisfied job satisfaction by public
university staff.
6. In general, public university staff showed higher job satisfaction than private staff for the job satisfaction.
7. Public university staff showed a significantly higher job satisfaction than private staff for two of the
job satisfaction elements; they are the Salary Welfare and Overall Job Satisfaction element.
8. There were no significant differences between public and private university staff’ job satisfaction for
work environment, work characteristics, organizational decision-making, leadership care, interper-
sonal relationships, and self-worth satisfaction elements. However, in generally, public university
staff showed a higher job satisfaction than private staff.
9. Except for Salary Welfare, there were significant relationships between the perceived Job Satisfaction
Elements of Public University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction.
10. The perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff explained 52.2 - 81% of the vari-
ability in Overall Job Satisfaction.
11. Except for Interpersonal Relationship, there were significant relationships between the perceived Job
Satisfaction Elements of Private University Staff and their Overall Job Satisfaction.
12. The perceived Job Satisfaction Elements of Public University Staff explained 60.2 - 78% of the vari-
ability in Overall Job Satisfaction.

60 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
Contributions and Practical Implications of the Findings
It is a topic of major concern for many researchers and an important organizational variable that
should be understood and constantly analyzed for the efficient working of any organization. Therefore,
this study provides empirical evidence as to the job satisfaction levels of staff in both public and private
universities and to determine what job factors are reliable predictors of their job satisfaction. Most univer-
sity staff in Taiwan have high educational levels and completed discipline. They are proud of being uni-
versity staff, and they also earn the respect and support from their family and most people. Consequently,
it is obvious that Self Worth got the same satisfaction levels in both the public and private university staff
within the job satisfaction element.
Also public universities are granted the financial support and teaching resources from the govern-
ment and means that it is natural that public university staff showed a significantly higher job satisfaction
than private staff for the two Salary Welfare and Overall Job Satisfaction elements. The results presented
here are crucial and look forward to bringing out to create sensitiveness to academics preoccupations and
dissatisfaction regarding their jobs, and conditions under which they work. The structure was explored
from staff’s perspectives and the importance was placed upon finding whether or not the relations existing
between job satisfaction elements and staff’s overall job satisfaction. University staff is the first line of
facing with students, we look forward to guiding a better service quality or an overall increase in per-
formance of the educational institutions or making practical implications to other business industries
global countries by means of this research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations for further study are made.

1. Further studies should be conducted to determine if years of service, or level of education and so on
impact university staff’ job satisfaction.
2. Further studies should be widely conducted to other countries other than areas of Taiwan or conducted
to faculty of university related to their job satisfaction.

SUMMARY

Generally, the study would give the key phrases of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, be-
havior analysis, staff management, organization behavior, human resource to a search engine. The search
engines would help audience to find the study to explore and compare the levels of job satisfaction of
staff of public and private universities and how they differ in their satisfaction levels regarding salary
welfare, work environment, work characteristics, organizational decision-making, leadership care, inter-
personal relationship, self-worth, and the overall job satisfaction. In addition, whether or not there is any
relationship existing between the perceived job satisfaction elements of university staff and their overall
job satisfaction for staff management and organizational behavior or human resource purposes. In short,
one of the purposes is to explore the relationship between job satisfaction elements and university staff
(employee) overall job satisfaction so that the increasingly demanding environment would be built and
staff’s university (organization) commitment could be expected and the students are benefited.

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 61
 APPENDICES

Job Satisfaction of University Staff Questionnaire

Hello dear respondents:
Thank you for taking time to fill out the questionnaire. This is mainly used to explore and understand the
levels of job satisfaction. As jobs satisfaction mediates relationship between facets of job and citizenship
behavior, your feedback will be for reference in enhancing the performance of the overall university ad-
ministration. Please fill in your valuable response in the corresponding boxes; and all of the informa-
tion you provide are for academic research purposes. Thanks again for the help.
Part One: Demographic Data Directions: Check the appropriate responses for items 1-5. (Omitted)
Part Two: Please fill in your valuable response in the corresponding boxes.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Undecided
Disagree

Agree
Statements

1. In addition to my current income to cope with the day-to-day overhead,

□ □ □ □ □
I can have savings.
2. I think that my job’s effort and the actual salary earned is equal. □ □ □ □ □
3. Compared with other related industries, my salary is reasonable. □ □ □ □ □
4. The overtime earning supplied by my department is reasonable. □ □ □ □ □
5. I am satisfied with my monthly salary against my workload. □ □ □ □ □
6. I satisfied overall welfare system level (such as: mutual aid, tourism ....) □ □ □ □ □
7. I am satisfied with the overall spatial planning of my department. □ □ □ □ □
8. I am satisfied with the work-related facilities provided. □ □ □ □ □
9. I am satisfied with the neat aspects of my department environment. □ □ □ □ □
10. My university provides the necessary resources and support for our
□ □ □ □ □
executive work.
11. I am satisfied with the geographical position of my university. □ □ □ □ □
12. I am satisfied with the workplace safety. □ □ □ □ □
13. I am satisfied with the leisure facilities and space my dept. supplies. □ □ □ □ □
14. I think my job is challenging. □ □ □ □ □
15. My work has an affirmation and support by my family. □ □ □ □ □
16. My work let me to try on new things with creativity. □ □ □ □ □
17. I have feedback with great sense of accomplishment on my work. □ □ □ □ □
18. My work can increase my personal ability. □ □ □ □ □
19. My work requires different skills to handle different things. □ □ □ □ □
20. It does not matter to change to other organization as long as the nature
□ □ □ □ □
of work and conditions are similar.
21. I am able to participate in the important decisions of my department. □ □ □ □ □
22. My supervisor will Initiatively specify when new measurements making. □ □ □ □ □
23. Administrative operation of my dept. can meet the needs of my work. □ □ □ □ □
24. I am satisfied with administrative system of my department. □ □ □ □ □
25. I am satisfied with the implementation situation of administrative sys-
□ □ □ □ □
tems of my department.
26. My work has clear instructions. □ □ □ □ □
27. I was clearly informed for those works I need to do. □ □ □ □ □

62 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue
 28. Supervisor often lets me know their view on my work performance. □ □ □ □ □
29. My supervisor observe carefully. □ □ □ □ □
30. My supervisor often takes time listening to staffs feelings and opinions. □ □ □ □ □
31. My supervisor implements our recommendations. □ □ □ □ □
32. It is very smooth for employees to express their opinions. □ □ □ □ □
33. Facing difficult problems, I initiatively find supervisor together to solve. □ □ □ □ □
34. Colleagues share their life with me willingly. □ □ □ □ □
35. I will share my work experience with colleagues. □ □ □ □ □
36. I have a good relationship with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □
37. When I have setbacks, I will seek colleagues for assistance. □ □ □ □ □
38. I communicate or phone chat with my colleagues in non-work time. □ □ □ □ □
39. I feel that I am a valuable person. □ □ □ □ □
40. I can handle anything like everyone else. □ □ □ □ □
41. I have a positive attitude for myself. □ □ □ □ □
42. My work gives me important life meaning. □ □ □ □ □
43. Overall, I am satisfied with my current job. □ □ □ □ □
44. I have a great sense of accomplishment for my current work. □ □ □ □ □
45. I am proud of the work as the staff of the educational university. □ □ □ □ □

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). Effects of Task Factors on Job Attitudes and Job Behaviors Enlargement and The Organizational Context,
Personnel Psychology, 22, 418-426.
Ahmed, I., Usman, A., & Rana, S. L. (2011). Jobs satisfaction mediates relationship between facets of job and citizenship behavior:
A study of female employees of banking sector of Pakistan. Information Management and Business Review, 3(4), 228-234.
Chen, P. Y. (2008). The study of staff’s job satisfaction in educational institute–A case study on middle and elementary schools in
Kaohsiung. Electronic Theses of Graduate of Business Management, Asia University, 2008, 1-75.
Chiu., K. P., & Lin, Y. J. (2009). Research of job satisfaction of Juvenile Correction School’s staffs: An example of Cheng-Jhing
High School. The Journal of Chinese Public Administration, 6, 105-127.
Daneshfard, C. & Ekvaniyan, K. E. (2012). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Islamic Azad University. Interdisci-
plinary Journal of Contemporary Research in usiness,3(9), 168-181.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and The Nature of Man. New York: Van No Strand. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York:
Harper and Brothers.
Khalid, S., Irshad, M. Z., Mahmood, B. (2012). Job satisfaction among academic staff: A comparative analysis between public and
private sector universities of Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Business & Management,7(1), 126-136.
Lin, C. C. (1992). Greater Kaohsiung Medical Center physician job satisfaction. Theses of Institute of Hospital and Health Care
Administration, National Yang-Ming University, 1992, 1-53. Available from National Yang-Ming University Library.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1297-1349.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Ramazannia, J., Kavousian, J., Beigy, A., Emami, M., & Hadavizadeh, A. (2010).The study of job satisfaction among Bandar Abbas
Islamic Azad University staff. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 258-261
Rashid, U. & Rashid, S. (2011). The effect of job enrichment on job satisfaction: A case study of faculty members. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(4), 106-117.
Tzeng, L. C. (1997). From the problems in the reform of technical and vocational education discussing future development. Techni-
cal and Vocational Education, 37, 57-58. Wikipedia (2012). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved from
http://www.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfaction; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue 63
Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job organization commitment as antecedents or organizational citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers. Pro-
cedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 998-1003.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

64 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 10, Num. 1, June 2014 issue