You are on page 1of 4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 1. January, 2011, Part II

JOB SATISFACTION OF HEAD TEACHERS FOR THE SELECTED TWENTY DIMENSIONS OF JOB
Safdar Rehman Ghazi, Saqib Shahzad, Gulap Shahzada, Uzma Syeda Gillani Institute of Education and Research, University of Science and Technology, Bannu (PAKISTAN) E-mails: drsrghazi@yahoo.com, drsaqib577@yahoo.com, gulap_786@yahoo.com, uzmasyedagilani@yahoo.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the study was to document facet-specific levels of job satisfaction of the head teachers as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondly, the influence of four selected demographic characteristics on twenty facets of job satisfaction was investigated. The mean scores for the 20 dimensions of job were ranged from Slightly Satisfied to Very Satisfied. Compensation, Working Conditions, Social Status, and School System Policies and Practices ranked the lowest in the hierarchy respectively, which indicates that the head teachers found to be Slightly Satisfied with these dimensions of job. Results based on this study provide a sufficient ground to frame the recommendations for Compensation, Working conditions, Social Status, and School System Policies and Practices. Key words: Job Satisfaction, Job Dimensions, Job Facets, Teacher Satisfaction, Head Teacher, Satisfaction 1. INTRODUCTION Although studies of industry workers provide meaningful data on job satisfaction, it is perhaps misleading to assume that findings pertaining to this population can be generalized for all people in all occupations. People differ in the extent to which they report job satisfaction, and the explanation for these differences lies in the nature of the jobs which various employees offer. For this reason, researchers began investigating other occupations in order to bring more diverse findings to the literature. Job satisfaction or dissatisfaction depends on a large number of factors ranging from where employees have to eat their lunch to the sense of self fulfillment they may receive from doing their jobs. Usually, job satisfaction involves a delineation of those factors that an employee perceives to either foster a positive attitude about work, or a negative attitude about work. Herzberg (1968) found that five factors intended to influence job satisfaction positively: (1) achievement, (2) recognition, (3) work itself, (4) responsibility, and (5) advancement. Factors, which if inadequate tended to support job dissatisfaction were: (1) salary, (2) possibility of growth, (3) interpersonal relations (subordinates), (4) status, (5) interpersonal relations (superiors), (6) interpersonal relations (peers), (7) supervisiontechnical, (8) company policy and administration, (9) working conditions, (10) personal life, and (11) job security. Recent reports in educational journals and in the popular presses about teacher stress and burnout indicate that employees satisfaction and morale merit increased attention. According to Stanton et al. (2002), job satisfaction has been measured in several ways, ranging from singleitem measures (Kunin 1955, Scarpello and Compbell 1983) to general multi-item measures (Ironson, et al. 1989) to multifaceted, multi-item measures (Smith, Kendall and Hulin 1969, Vroom 1964, Warr and Routledge 1969, Weiss, et al. 1967). There are two primary ways to measure job satisfaction (Nagy Marks 1996). One method is to simply measure overall or global job satisfaction. Many times, this overall measure is obtained by asking a single question, such as, Overall, how satisfied are you with your job? and the respondents has to answer with yes/no options about his/her overall job satisfaction. Many researchers have a view that by using the global scale one can easily express his/her about job satisfaction and the researcher can easily conclude his results. According to Nagy Marks (1996) two popular global measures of satisfaction are the Job in General (JIG) and Faces Scale. The JIG was developed by the same author who developed the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), namely Pat Smith and her associates in 1989. Like the JDI, the JIG uses the y/n/? three-point response format, with three points for a yes response, one point for a ? response, and zero point for a no response. Unlike the JDI, however, the JIG is based on feelings about ones job and not on descriptions of ones job. Although the scale is fairly new, the JIG has received evidence of construct validity (Smith et al., 1969). Unfortunately, the JIG, with its18 questions and three-point response format, does not fit the description of Scarpello and Cambells (1983) ideal global measure of job satisfaction. A scale that does have only one question when measuring global satisfaction is the Faces Scale developed by Kunin in 1955. As the name implies, the Faces Scale uses six facial expressions as its response format. One of the benefits using the Faces Scale is that it is supposed to help those who cannot read complete the scale. However, a person must be able to read question in order to answer the scale. The other method of measuring job satisfaction involves facet scales that are used to measure such separate, or specific, areas of a job as satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with pay (Nagy Marks 1996).

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 651

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No.1. January, 2011, Part II

According to Guilloux et al. (2002), faceted approaches; the identification of the multi-facets of the job has done a lot of publications (Smith, et al. 1989). The scales that are utilized to measure job satisfaction are: The MSQ (Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire) (Weiss et al. 1967), The Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (Porter 1961) and the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham 1975). According to Milkovich, and Boudreau (1988), The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) measures satisfaction with the 20 work facets. Analysts compute overall measures of individual satisfaction by summing the individual facet satisfaction levels, or by asking individuals a specific question about their overall satisfaction. The MSQ is available in both a long form and a short form. The long form contains 100 items which measure twenty job facets and the responses can be converted to respondents satisfaction on each of the facets. The short form uses the same response format but contains twenty items and only measures intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction. Both forms can be used to report a measure of general job satisfaction (Weiss et al. 1967). JDI is used to determine satisfaction with five facets: work itself, coworkers, supervisor, pay, and promotion opportunities. The nature of the JDI stemmed from the belief that satisfaction is judged relative to an individuals perception of alternative jobs available to the person (Smith et al. 1969). According to Nagy Marks (1996), the Index for Organizational Reactions (IOR) was developed by Randall et al. (1977). Unlike the JDI, this scale has a five-point response format, and involves a persons feelings about a job and not the descriptions about the job. The IOR has 42 items. Statement of the Problem: This study sought to investigate which of the twenty dimensions of the job as assessed on the MSQ, the head teachers identified as contributing to job satisfaction. Objectives: The study was designed with the following objectives: 1. To determine head teachers satisfaction level for each of the twenty dimensions of the job as measured by the MSQ. 2. To suggest measures to improve practices to develop satisfaction for different dimensions of job; and 3. To make recommendations for further research. Research Guiding Question: The research was guided by the question: What is the satisfaction level of head teachers for each of the twenty dimensions of the job as measured by the MSQ? Delimitations: The respondents responses on given dimensions of job satisfaction were delimited by the nature of the MSQ. 2. METHOD Population and Sample: The population of this study consisted of all head teachers of government elementary schools of district Toba Tek Singh in the Punjab. The teachers of all categories, who were working as head teachers in government elementary schools in district Toba Tek Singh, filled the questionnaires. Due to the devolution of power at district level; to make the results more authentic at district level sample was identical to the population. Instrumentation: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used as a research tool. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was developed by Weiss, Dawis, English, and Lofquist (1967) to measure the individuals satisfaction with twenty different aspects {Ability utilization, Achievement, Activity, Authority, Coworkers (reworded to colleagues), Creativity, Independence, Moral values, Recognition, Responsibility, Social service, Social status, Variety, Advancement, Company policies and practices (reworded to School System Policies and Practices), Compensation, Security, Supervision -human relations, Supervision-technical, Working conditions} of the work environment and is one of the most popular measures of job satisfaction. The instrument utilizes a 20dimension Likert-type scale format with a total of 100 items. Instrument in its original shape is already standardized having high validity but in different context or environments some changes were made in the questionnaire and then it was translated into Urdu by the researcher. Validation of Urdu version was checked by the committee of experts. The questionnaire was also subjected to a pilot run. In order to collect data, the participants for this study were selected, listed in the E.D.O office Toba Tek Singh. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was adapted and data collection was done personally and through mail. From urban areas data was collected personally, and for rural areas, survey packages were mailed. The use of both procedures resulted in a response rate 86.95%. In tabular form frequency of survey response is as under: Table 1. Frequencies of Survey Responses Number of Respondents Non Respondents Unusable Surveys 6 Usable Surveys 180 % of Usable Surveys

207

21

86.95

652 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH


3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Vol. 3. No. 1. January, 2011, Part II

All scores on the MSQ were entered in the software SPSS-10, and data pertaining to the objectives of this study were generated accordingly. Mean and Standard Deviation were used as a statistical technique. The following scale was followed in analyzing and interpreting the results of data: 1.00 - 1.50 Not Satisfied 1.51 - 2.50 Slightly Satisfied 2.51 - 3.50 Satisfied 3.51 - 4.50 Very Satisfied 4.51 - 5.00 Extremely Satisfied Table 2. Rank Order of MSQ on Twenty Dimensions of Job Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Facets Compensation Working conditions Social status School system Policies and Practices Advancement Social Service Creativity Recognition Supervision Human Relations Security Independence Colleagues Supervision-Technical Authority Responsibility Achievement Ability Utilization Variety Activity Moral values M 2.02 2.16 2.24 2.48 2.51 2.52 2.60 2.61 2.75 2.75 2.78 2.82 2.83 2.85 2.96 3.00 3.01 3.47 3.54 3.60 SD 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.58 0.56 0.79 0.57 0.60 0.55 0.56 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.58 0.56 0.59

Table 2 depicts that the mean scores for the 20 dimensions were ranked from the lowest to the highest and the hierarchy showed that the head teachers were Slightly Satisfied with Compensation, Working Conditions, Social Status, and School System Polices and Practices with mean scores between 2.02 and 2.48, With SD ranging from .50 to .63. The following fourteen dimensions of the job; Advancement, Social Service, Creativity, Recognition, Supervision Human Relation, Security, Independence, Colleagues, Supervision Technical, Authority, Responsibility, Achievement, Ability Utilization and Variety; shows that the head teachers obtained mean scores ranging from 2.51 to 3.47 (SD = .46 to .63) which resulted that the head teachers were found Satisfied with these aspects of their job. The head teachers were found to be Very Satisfied with Activity and Moral Values aspects of their job; with mean scores ranged 3.54-3.60 and SD=0.56-0.59. 4. CONCLUSIONS 1. Compensation, Working Conditions, Social Status, and School Polices and Practices were the facets of job which contributed to low satisfaction. 2. The head teachers were satisfied with the facets of their job, i.e. Advancement, Social Service, Creativity, Recognition, Supervision Human Relation, Security, Independence, Colleagues, Supervision Technical, Authority, Responsibility, Achievement, Ability Utilization and Variety. 3. The head teachers were found to be Very Satisfied with Activity and Moral Values dimensions of their job. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Satisfaction level for Compensation can be improved by providing head teachers more chances to earn more money. There should be a big rise in the salaries and fringe benefits of the head teachers.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 653

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No.1. January, 2011, Part II

2. A large amount in annual budget may be reserved to improve the working conditions in the elementary schools. So that the facilities and necessities like boundary wall, sanitation system, fresh water, building, furniture, electricity, gas, fans, heaters, science laboratories, libraries, play grounds etc may be provided to all the schools. 3. The satisfaction level for Social Status can be improved by providing head teachers more chances to intermingle with important personalities. Political influence should be reduced in institutions. 4. Teachers day should be celebrated at government level in a highlighted way using all types of media. 5. Government also needs to be sure how the new polices and practices are in the favor of the head teachers. 6. It is encouraging that head teachers were very satisfied with Activity and Moral Values, and the steps should be taken to increase this level of satisfaction or to maintain this standard for these dimensions of job. 7. Studies on satisfaction should be conducted to investigate more determinants and predictors to job satisfaction. 8. Studies should be encouraged to find out the reasons; why head teachers are not satisfied with their Compensation, Working Conditions, Social Status, and School Policies and Practices and how the prevalent conditions may be improved in the elementary schools. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Guilloux, V., et al. The Psychological Profile as Determinant of Satisfaction among French franchisees. Abstract for the 5th AFM French German Conference, University of Paris IX Dauphine. 2002, pp 8. Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. Development and the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60:159-170 (1975). Herzberg, F. W. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employee. Harvard Business Review. 46: 53-62 (1968). Ironson, G. H., et al. Construction of a Job in General Scale: A Comparison of Global, Composite and Specific Measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1989) Kunin, T. The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. Personnel Psychology, 8: 65-67 (1955). Nagy Mark S. What To Do When You Are Dissatisfied With Job Satisfaction Scales: A Better Way to Measure Job Satisfaction Technical Affairs Section; International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council. IPMAAC Online. (1996). Porter, L. W. A Study of Perceived Need Satisfactions in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 1-10 (1961). Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J. P., Job Satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36: 577-600 (1983). Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. and Hulin, C. L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. (1969). Stanton, J. M., et al. Revising the JDI Work Satisfaction Subscale: Insights into Stress and Control. Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Vol.62, Sage Publications, (2002) pp. 878-879. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley. (1964). Warr, B. and Routledge, T. An Opinion Scale for the Study of Managers Job Satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 43: 95-109 (1969). Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. W. and Lofquist, L. H. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center, Work Adjustment Project. (1967).

654 | www.ijar.lit.az