Full Thesis
Full Thesis
Full Thesis
BY
JANUARY, 2011
BY
JANUARY, 2011
ii
CERTIFICATION
It is certified that this thesis titled Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Among
Academic Staff in some Selected Private Universities in Southwest Nigeria is based on
original research work carried out by Adeniji, Anthonia Adenike under our supervision
and that it has not been submitted for the award of any degree in this or any other
University.
....
Signature & Date
..
Signature & Date
iii
DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that this research work titled Organizational Climate and
Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff in some Selected Private Universities
in Southwest Nigeria was undertaken by Adeniji, Anthonia Adenike and is based
on her original study in the Department of Business Studies, School of Business,
College of Development Studies, Covenant University, Ota, under the supervision
of Professor Sola Fajana and Dr.Olufemi Adeyeye. The ideas and views of other
researchers have been duly expressed and acknowledged.
...
Signature and Date
...
Signature and Date
Dr.O.U Asikhia
Head, Department of Business Studies
School of Business
College of Development Studies
Covenant University, Ota
.
Signature and Date
iv
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to Christ my Redeemer in whom dwells the fullness of
Godhead bodily and in whom I am made complete. It is also dedicated to my life coach,
God Servant Bishop David Olaniyi Oyedepo and his amiable wife, Pastor (Mrs.) Faith
Abiola Oyedepo both of whom have shown me the path of life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This medium provides me the opportunity to express my immense gratitude
to the Almighty God, the father of light whose light has guided my steps thus far. I
will forever be grateful to the visionary of this great institution (Covenant
University, Ota), Dr David Olaniyi Oyedepo for his foresight and for constantly
giving out time both to challenge our potentials in God and to provoke us in the
school of exploits.
I thank the management of the school under the able leadership of Prof Aize
Obayan -the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Charles Ogbulogo, Deputy Vice Chancellor,
the Registrar Dr. Rotimi Daniel, Professor Kayode Soremekun (Dean, College of
Development Studies),and Professor Rotimi Ajayi (Former Dean, College of
Development Studies) for providing a serene and a conducive academic
environment. A world class University indeed!
Special thanks go to my supervisor and co-supervisor, Professor Sola Fajana
and Dr. Olufemi Adeyeye for their valuable contributions to the success of this
work. I cannot forget my mentor and our immediate Head of Department,
Professor Sunday Oyewole Otokiti for the Push and the great intellectual input
he made to this work. May God Almighty reward him.
Equally, I wish to appreciate my Head of Department, Dr. Olalekan U.
Asikhia for the constant attention and needed direction he provided to me. May he
continue to flourish. Also, to our pioneer Head of Department, our father and my
own father Professor Joseph Abiodun Bello. I pray that his years be long on
the earth.
There are many other academics whose inputs and contributions made this
work a success. Senior colleagues and fathers they are really. These include
Distinguished Professor J.A.T Ojo, Distinguished Professor Adeyemi, Professor
G.A. Sote, Professor Fadayomi, Professor Don Ike, Professor Omoweh, Professor
Dayo-Ade Turton, Dr C.K. Ayo, Dr Ranti Ogunrinola, Dr K.S. Adeyemi, Dr.
Patrick Edewor. And also to, Prof. P. Enyi, Dr. J. Ayam, Dr. W.K. Olayiwola, Dr.
O.O. Iyiola, Dr.A.O. Osibanjo, Dr. Daniel Gberevbie, Dr. Patrick Alege, Dr. P.
Adelusi, Elder Iyoha, Dr. J Enahoro, Dr. G. Adejumo. I thank them all for creating
time to nurture and help me read through this work times without number.
Special mention must be made of friends and colleagues at work on whose
wings of love I am flying. I am eternally grateful to Dr. Omotayo Joseph Oyeniyi
for always being there for me. Special thanks to Messrs. John Kolade Obamiro,
Joachim Abiodun, Constantine Imafidone Tongo, O.O. Ogunnaike, Dr. S.T.
Akinyele, Dr. Chinonye Okafor, Dr. O.S. Ibidunni, Dr. O.J. Kehinde, Mrs.
Toyinayo Mathew, Mrs. Babajide, Dr. A. Umoren, Dr. A. Osibanjo, Dr. O. Iyiola,
vi
Mrs. Ogbari M, Dr. Rowland Worlu, Mr. Adegbuyi O.A., Mrs. Roland-Otaru C.O.,
Mrs Oni-Ojo E.E., Miss A. Ogunba, Mr Ogunnaike, O.O, Dr. and Dr. (Mrs.)
Uwuigbe, Dr Fola Adegbie, Mr. Alex Ehimare, and many others that are not
mentioned here.
My honour list is also extended to our pioneer lecturers; Mr. Fadugba
Olumuyiwa, Mr. Epetimehin Samuel, Mr. Agboola Mayowa, Miss Akinbode
Mosunmola, Mr. Ikoda E. Inaboya, Mrs Adeniji Chichi, Miss Shogbola Deborah,
and Mrs Dirisu Joy. They are welcome on board.
I acknowledge the efforts of my brother John A. Philip for his contribution. I
also thank Mr. Raphael Olanrewaju and sister Bunmi for their support. Also the
staff of the Centre for System and Information Sciences (CSIS): Engr. Mike
Ogboluchi (The Director) the Deputy Director-Mrs. Aboyade, Pastor Afolabi,
Brother Daniel, Sister Nike, Sister Dami, Mrs Oluyori, and Engr. Sam. Similarly,
the Centre for Learning Resource (CLR) has been so wonderful, I wish to thank the
Director Mr. Nkiko, Sister Ronke, Mrs. Yusuf, Mr. Abayomi and others who for
space constraint, I cannot mention.
Blessed be the day I met my husband Adebayo Oluwagbemiga Adeniji and
thank God for the fruit of the union (Ewaoluwa, Jolaoluwa and Ibukunoluwa). I
appreciate God for the spiritual coverage I enjoyed from my Area Pastor Pastor
Afolabi and the brotherly love of Deacon Johnson, the Oshiames, Brother John
Oyinloye and other co-labourers in His vineyard. May God account us worthy on
that glorious day (Amen).
My heartfelt appreciation goes to my parents Late Pa. Peter Adenrele
Ojobo and wife Mrs. Mary Agbeke Ojobo who birthed me into this world and
offered me early tutelage. I will forever remember good deeds and values both of
them deposited in my life.
vii
ABSTRACT
This study attempts to establish the relationships that exist between the different variables
of organizational climate and job satisfaction among academic staff in some selected
private Universities in South-West Nigeria. It also sets to ascertain if those related
factors in organizational climate can cause satisfaction among academics thereby
impacting on their academic excellence; and to determine if there are differences in the
way senior academics and junior academics perceive the existing organizational climate.
A total of 384 copies of questionnaires were administered to selected five (5) private
Universities in the South-West Zone of Nigeria but a total of 293 questionnaires were
returned fully and appropriately filled. The study made use of both descriptive and
inferential statistics such as frequencies, means, and standard deviation, including
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, Multiple Regression and Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) to obtain results. The results indicate that there is a significant
positive relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction among
academics in Southwest Nigeria at F= 453.524, df= 292, significant at 0.000 and at a
correlation of 0.671, also significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed) . That the climates of an
organization and job satisfaction vary together. Not only that, in the overall analysis that
was done on the perception in the way junior and senior academics experience their
organizational climate, it was found that there is a significant difference in the way both
the senior and junior academics experience their organizational climate at F= 430.768.
Further study research was recommended in comparative study on private and public
University academics to view their perception of organizational climate in relation to
their job satisfaction.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page ...
Certification
Declaration
Dedication ..
Acknowledgements
Abstract ..
List of Tables ..
List of Figures .
i
iii
iv
v
vi
viii
xiii
xvi
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Research Questions .. 7
1.5
Research Hypotheses .. 8
1.6
1.7
Research Methodology 9
1.8
1.9
Operationalization of Variables
10
1.10
1.11
13
15
2.1
Introduction .. 15
2.2
2.3
Interactive Theories . .. 31
33
34
2.5
2.5.2 Achievement 35
2.5.3
Recognition..
36
2.5.4
Responsibility
37
2.5.5
Work Itself.. 38
2.5.6
2.6
Job Dissatisfaction 40
39
2.6.3
Supervision.. 43
Salaries. 46
2.6.6
Status... 46
2.7
Organizational Climate . 47
Summary . 63
65
3.1
Introduction .. 65
3.2
Research Setting 65
3.4
3.5
3.6
Sampling Frame 69
3.8
Division of Questionnaire..
70
3.9
70
3.10
72
3.10.1 Validity . . 72
3.10.1.1 Internal Validity . 73
3.10.1.2 External Validity ... 74
3.10.2 Reliability ......................
74
75
3.11
Introduction . 77
4.2
77
79
81
4.2.5 Age .. 82
4.3
Descriptive Statistics.
88
4.4
Hypotheses Testing
99
4.5
123
5.1
Introduction . 138
5.2
5.3
Discussion of Findings141
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
References . 158
Bibliography.. 180
Appendix I (Research Questionnaire) 201
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table3.1
66
Table3.2
68
Table 4.1
78
Table 4.2.2
79
Table 4.3a
Gender ...
79
Table 4.3b
80
Table 4.4a
Table 4.4b
Table 4.5a
82
Table 4.5b
81
83
83
Table 4.6
84
Table 4.7
89
Table 4.8
90
Table 4.9
91
Table 4.10
92
Table 4.11
92
Table 4.12
93
Table 4.13
94
Table 4.14
94
Table 4.15
95
Table 4.16
95
Table 4.17
96
Table 4.18
97
xiii
Table 4.19
97
Table 4.20
98
Table 4.21
98
Table 4.22
Table 4.23
Table 4.24
102
Table 4.27
101
Table 4.26
100
Table 4.25
99
103
104
Table 4.28
105
Table 4.29
Table 4.30
Table 4.31
112
Table 4.35
111
Table 4.34
110
Table 4.33
108
Table 4.32
107
113
Table 4.36
Table 4.38
118
Table 4.42
117
Table 4.41
116
Table 4.40
115
Table 4.39
115
119
120
Table 4.43
121
Table 4.44
122
Table 4.45
123
Table 4.46
123
Table 4.47
124
Table 4.48
125
Table 4.49
125
Table 4.50
126
Table 4.51
127
Table 4.52
127
Table 4.53
128
Table 4.54
128
Table 4.55
129
Table 4.56
129
Table 4.57
130
Table 4.58
130
Table 4.59
131
Table 4.60
Table 4.61
Table 4.62
Table 4.63
Summary of Findings
132
133
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 4.1: Model of Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction
Variables
xvi
87
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
In both developed and most developing countries, there have been several job satisfaction
studies of which very few of them have been focused on the job satisfaction of the university
teachers in relation to their organizational climate. Similarly, earlier work revealed that most
of these relevant studies were focused on Universities in United Kingdom and available
researches were reported in the last two decades (Nicholson & Miljus, 1992; Gruneberg, et al
1976 and Gruneberg and Startup, 1978). Worthy of note is that none of these researches have
focused on organizational climate and job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the
university teachers. Infact, from 1996 till date, the work of Oshagbemi focused on UK and
Malaysia University teachers (Oshagbemi, 1996; Oshagbemi, 1997; Oshagbemi, 1998;
Oshagbemi 1999 & Oshagbemi, 2000).
Despite this scattered efforts on job satisfaction among academic staff in the UK and
Malaysia, there is a dearth of research on the subject interest in Nigeria, importantly in
relation to their organizational climate, hence, why this study is considered necessary at this
time.
Organizations that have goals to achieve would require satisfied and happy staff in her
workforce, (Oshagbemi, 2000). Importantly is the fact that for any university to take off and
achieve its strategic goals would strongly depend on her capacity to attract, retain and
maintain competent and satisfied staff into its employment. The university being an
institution of higher learning that provides manpower needs to advance national development
through both the public and private sector must itself be capable of ensuring adequate
manpower planning and development she could therefore not afford to neglect need and
essentials of workforce satisfaction. The Nigerian universities could be classified according
to their years of establishment thus: first, second, third and fourth generation universities.
The first generation universities are the universities established in the country before the
1970s. The second-generation universities are those universities established in the 1970s.
The third generation universities are those universities established either by the federal or
state governments in the 1980s and 1990s, while the fourth generation universities are those
1
universities established in the late 1990s and 2000s mainly by private individuals or
organizations (Gberevbie, 2006). Universities whether private or public are training grounds
for students doing the comprehensive courses in order to translate theory into practice. They
conduct training in all kinds of programmes or disciplines. Both government and private
sectors fund public and private universities respectively.
Against this background, University lecturers are currently facing many challenges in form
of inadequate infrastructure, lack of enabling research environment, disparity in salary and
allowances, inconsistent policy implementation between Federal and State governments may
well affect their levels of job satisfaction (Kniveton, 1991). Infact some of these academics
again are of the opinion that communication and decision-making problems exist in their
institutions because the superiors take certain decisions without involving them which in turn
creates additional negative work environment.
In addition to the above, the researcher also observed that unhappiness results from
academics job structure and compensation ranging from lack of feedback regarding
personnel evaluation reports, management emphasis on particular administrative style,
workload, lack of support from superior in terms of mentoring to salary package which
further increased job dissatisfaction among employees.
The above raises concern regarding the attitudes of educators towards their work and their
levels of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Steyn and Van Wyk, 1999).
An earlier study by Kestetner (1994) showed that almost half of new educators leave the field
during the first five years of their employment. This is expected to be of great concern to all
employees because unhappy and dissatisfied employees may translate into poor performance
and high staff turnover.
The nature of organizational climate differs from one university to the other. Organizational
climate serves as a measure of individual perceptions or feelings about an organization.
Organizational climate includes management or leadership styles, participation in decision
making, provision of challenging jobs to employees, reduction of boredom and frustration,
provision of benefits, personnel policies, provision of good working conditions and creation
of suitable career ladder for academics (Nicholson and Miljus, 1992). All of these are seen as
frustrating factors to academics from the results of the study.
Based on the researchers observations and interactions with members of the academic staff
during the pilot study academics in selected private universities (i.e. the fourth generation
universities) in the Southwest Nigeria indicate that there were some forms of dissatisfaction.
They view their organizational climate with mixed feelings as characterized by;
(a)Unchallenging jobs; (b)Shortage of personnel where lecturers are expected to perform
responsibilities, which were supposed to be performed by other employees; Lack of
feedback about performance and evaluation exercise; (d) Lack of recognition for work done
well through merit or announcements in meetings; (e) Lack of material resources and basic
infrastructure that make work environment difficult for employees to carry out duties; (f)
Poor communication where there is no two-way communication between managers and
subordinates; and (g) Lack of staff development activities which prevent personnel from
being equipped with knowledge and skill that they need in order to provide quality service.
Job satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted concept, which can mean different things to
different people. It is more of an attitude, in internal state. It could be associated with a
personal feeling of achievement, either quantitative or qualitative (Mullins, 1999). He
examines job satisfaction (1) in terms of the fit between what the organization requires and
what the employee is seeking and (2) in terms of the fit between what employees is seeking
and what he/she is actually receiving. He emphasized that the level of job satisfaction is
affected by a wide range of variables relating to (1) individual (i.e. personality, education,
intelligence and abilities, age, marital status and orientation to work); (2) social factors (i.e.
relationship with co-workers, group working and norms and opportunity for interaction); (3)
cultural factors (i.e. attitudes, beliefs and values); (4) organizational factors (i.e. nature and
size, formal structure, personnel policies and procedures, employee relations, nature of the
work, supervision and styles of leadership, management systems and working conditions);
and (5) environmental factors (i.e. economic, social, technical and governmental influences).
Sweeny and Mcfarln (2002) defined job satisfaction as the result of a psychological
comparison process of the extent to which various aspects of their job (e.g. pay, autonomy,
work load) measure up to what they desire. Thus, the larger the gap between what employees
have and what they want from their jobs, the less satisfied they are; (employees tend to be
most satisfied with their jobs when what they have matches what they want.
3
An employee overall job satisfaction is the cumulative result of comparisons that she makes
between what her job provides and what she desires in various areas. The fact that perceived
importance makes such a big difference in how employees feel also has implications for
management.
Obisi, (2003), listed factors that contribute to job satisfaction as; adequate salary, good
working conditions, parental management, job security, opportunity for growth, positive and
supportive environment, friendly nature of co-workers and colleagues responsibility and
cordial relationship between the superior and the subordinates. Therefore, we can conclude
that job satisfaction is a persons evaluation of his or her job and work context.
1.2
The evolving competition in the higher education environment in Nigeria evident from the
increasing number of new universities has called for good organizational climate that would
allow these universities to retain their best hands. Though, university is universal, meaning
lecturers are also mobile managers who must move to create employment for younger ones,
yet, efforts should be made to encourage senior ones to reproduce themselves for national
development.
Reports by the NUC (2008) revealed that while universities are increasing,
academics. This is necessary to identify how best to retain faculty in the University
employment and prevent constant mobility known as brain drain.
Gunter and Furnham (1996) state that organizational climate can directly cause work
outcomes that are either positive or negative. Positive work incentives are incentives that
make work interesting, e.g.; attractive work environment, good personnel policies, provision
of benefits, job structure and compensation. Enabling work environment leads to motivation,
good personnel policies, favourable work environment, provision of benefits, job satisfaction
and compensation. However, negative work incentives include those incentives that make
work boring, unchallenging and dissatisfying. They lead to increased absenteeism, turnover
and accidents.
Thus to prevent these negative work outcomes, there is a need to find out which factors
within the organizational climate can lead to satisfaction among academics so as to
continually have productive, satisfied and contented academics.
However, it is important to point out that the researcher is not unaware of the fact that factors
like clear lines of communication, adequate reward system and promotional opportunities
could also encourage or discourage both positive and negative work outcomes which if not
adequately put in place could result in turnover of these academics. Comparative studies of
this nature would afford the researcher the opportunity to identify variations in job
satisfaction of academics and their impact on academic excellence.
A number of factors had been identified in literature as responsible for the extent to which
dissatisfaction is associated with faculty job structure and compensation. The impact of these
factors varied and are quite associated with faculty beliefs, management of factors and
tolerance levels (Delery and Doty, 2006; Doty, Glick and Huber, 2003). These factors which
could enhance or impede academics work performance include top management emphasis on
administrative style, work load, feedback about performance and support from superiors.
Moreover, job satisfaction is relevant to the physical and mental well being of employees, i.e.
job satisfaction has relevance for human health (Oshagbemi, 1999). An understanding of the
factors involved in job satisfaction is relevant to improve the well being of a significant
number of people. While the pursuit of the improvement of satisfaction is of humanitarian
value, Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) stated that trite as it may seem, satisfaction is a
legitimate goal in itself. Therefore, apart from its humanitarian utility, it appears to make
5
economic sense to consider whether and how job satisfaction can be improved. Hence, the
needs to identify variables within the organizational climate that can help improve the job
satisfaction of academic staff working in the selected private Universities in South-west
Nigeria.
Most of the previous studies have made attempt to explain a workers job satisfaction as a
function of the individuals personal characteristics and the characteristics of the job itself.
Variables such as age, gender, marital and parental status, educational status, hours of work
and earning figures were identified as key factors that determine job satisfaction of university
teachers. Gender level in the organization and educational status are often included as
individual characteristics in studies of job satisfaction, but no conclusive findings with regard
to the levels of satisfaction between the junior and the senior academics have been found
(Fields and Blum, 1997; Oshagbemi, 1997; Oshagbemi, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2000; Klecker
and Loadman, 1999).
In general, these demographic variables have significant impact on job satisfaction.
Moreover, the existing literature shows that the junior academics are more satisfied with
their jobs than the senior academics, as reflecting junior academics lower expectation from
their job (Oshagbemi, 2000).
Since the majority of researches on job satisfaction of academics had been undertaken in the
UK and Malaysia, the extent to which research findings in these countries can be applied to
Nigerian Universities (particularly the private institutions) remained unestablished.
Based on the above information, universities (private) organizational climate also have both
positive and negative work outcomes that could influence the behaviour of employees within
the organization. Universities are characterized by a shortage of staff which results in work
overload and thus lecturers are expected to undertake certain administrative works to cover
all the works that are supposed to be done. Other factors that appear to affect effective
functioning of organizations include management and leadership styles, non-academic duties,
unclear rules and regulations in the personnel policies, excessive work load, poor
communication with supervisor cum unclear lines of communication, boredom and
frustration resulting from lack of support from the superior, suitable career ladder,
unchallenging jobs and inadequate fringe benefits as expected in the working condition
(Marriner- Tomey, 1996). Therefore, this study hopes to establish the relationships that exist
6
between the different variables of organizational climate and job satisfaction among
academic staff in some selected private universities in Southwest Nigeria.
1.4
Research Questions
4. What type of organizational climate that includes boredom and frustration, personnel
policies, working conditions and participation in decision making would enhance
positive work outcomes?
5. Would there be any difference in the way senior and junior academics experience
organizational climate that could negatively impact on them?
1.5
Research Hypotheses
To provide answers to the research questions, the following hypotheses are tested in this
study:
Hypothesis One.
There would be no positive significant relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction among academics in southwest Nigeria.
Hypothesis Two.
Factors like clear lines of communication, payment/ salary package and promotional
opportunities would not contribute to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis Three.
Faculty leaving a University based on dissatisfactory level of organizational climate cannot
be significantly described by work load, feedback about performance and support from
superiors.
Hypothesis Four.
Organizational climate consists of participation in decision making,
frustration, personnel policies and
boredom and
important as it will highlight the factors that university lecturers view as enhancing job
satisfaction within their organizational climate. The management of schools will find the
research helpful in improving staff morale and bringing about job satisfaction of their
employees. An educator who achieves success in his or her job and whose needs are met in
the work place would be a happy employee that would strive to maintain excellence. In
addition, the study will recommend adoptable policies and strategies for mitigating
organizational correlates of job dissatisfaction.
submitted that questionnaire facilitates gathering of data from a widely scattered sample.
The researcher utilized one structured questionnaire for both the senior academics and junior
academics. This was presented personally to all respondents by the researcher in the sampled
universities. This was to enhance uniformity of responses bearing in mind the degree of
variations in perception of what the organizational climate may be referred to by the
academics.
academics (senior and lower level academics) and determine whether there is a difference in
the way the senior academics and the junior academics perceive the existing organizational
climate. Recommendations were made on how to improve the organizational climate in
order to facilitate greater job satisfaction and decrease job dissatisfaction among the
participants.
The limitations of the study are;
-
The study was limited to five selected Private Universities within the
Southwest Nigeria implying the results obtained may not be generalized to other
universities that were not included in the study.
Junior participants may not feel free to express their perceptions concerning the
organizational climate because they will not want to jeopardize their relationships
with their seniors.
Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations, generalization can only be limited to private
10
11
Model Element 2: Determination of the relationship between the variables of job satisfaction:
impact of co-workers and line of communication, payment/ salary package, promotional
opportunities and the variables of organizational climate of selected universities.
Model Element 3: Examined the level of association between the organizational climate and
job satisfaction variables of workload of staff, feedback process and support from
superiors and supervisors.
Model Element 4: Explained how interactional organizational variables (participation in
decision making and identity in the organization, boredom and frustration, personnel policies
and working condition) impact negatively on job satisfaction and work outcome in sample
study.
Model Element 5: Represents a comparative analysis of both junior and senior respondents
on their experience within specific organization from which sample was chosen.
H5
H1
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Climate
H3
H2
H4
Appropriate Administrative Style
Support from Superior/Supervisor
Work Load of Staff
Feedback about performance.
Co-Workers and Core of Communication
Pay/Salary Package.
Promotional Opportunities.
12
Organizational climate and job satisfaction model shown in figure 1.1 above embraces all the
factors of Organisational climate and Job satisfaction outlined in the operationalisation of
concept.
The model represents the five hypotheses tested for in this study.
It explains how organizational climate affects academics (both junior and senior) in the
selected private universities (H5). This tests whether there would be any differences in the
way senior and junior academics experience organizational climate that could negatively
impact on them.
Hypothesis Four (H4) identified types of interactional organizational climate variables that
could enhance positive work outcomes while Hypothesis Three (H3) explains how the factors
listed in the box, that is administrative style, workload, support from superior and feedback
about performance could determine the proportion of faculty leaving the university if
dissatisfied with them which could adversely affect university functioning.
However, Hypothesis Two (H2) depicts the relationships between the variables in the box
(clear lines of communication, salary package and promotional opportunities) and how these
could contribute to job satisfaction; while Hypothesis One (H1) represents possible positive
relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction among academics in the
selected private universities.
The model conceived organizational climate as having effects on academics which
subsequently affect their job satisfaction.
Literature is reviewed in Chapter Two with the Theoretical Framework explained. The
purpose is to produce a conceptual background against which the study of the problem was
expatiated. Therefore, relevant literatures were reviewed about organizational climate, job
13
satisfaction, job dissatisfaction and strategies that could be utilized to improve the
organizational climate in private institutions.
The Third Chapter focused on the description of how the survey instrument (a questionnaire)
was developed, pilot tested and implemented. Also, research methodology e.g. research
design, population and sample, data collection, analysis and presentation were discussed.
Data analyses and discussion of research findings are the focus of Chapter Four and
in the Final Chapter, Conclusions from the results in chapter four are presented.
Recommendations based on the research findings and a workable plan of action is the
concern in the latter part of the chapter.
14
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
In this chapter, a literature review on organizational climate and how organizational climate
can influence the behaviour of employees within the workplace is made. Hence, the chapter
intends to find out whether organizational climate can lead to job satisfaction or job
dissatisfaction and show how managers can create an environment that will promote job
satisfaction and motivation as well as achievement of organizational goals and objectives.
This chapter also discusses factors that contribute to job satisfaction and describe how these
factors affect the behaviour and work performance of employees (academic staff).
2.2
Job satisfaction is a key factor in productivity (Oshagbemi, 2000). However, job satisfaction
is certainly not the only factor that causes people to produce at different rates (Daniels,
2001). One major reason for the continuing interest in job satisfaction, as Wilson and
Rosenfeld (1990) pointed out is that, positive and negative attitudes towards work may exert
powerful effects on many forms of organizational behaviour. Relevant research data have
demonstrated the importance of job satisfaction in an organization, especially, in terms of its
efficiency, productivity, employee relations, absenteeism and turnover (Baron, 1996,
Maghradi, 1999 and Fajana 2001).
In addition to being influenced by the level of satisfaction, performance is affected by a
workers ability as well as a number of situational and environmental factors such as
mechanical breakdowns, low quality materials, inadequate supply of materials, availability
of stocks and market forces (Boro, et al). Nevertheless, in the case of lower-level jobs where
little ability is required, job satisfaction seems to be one of the key determinants of
performance (Cockburn& Perry, 2004; Boro, et al 2001). Therefore, job satisfaction is very
important in an organization because if employees are not satisfied, their work performance,
productivity, commitment as well as the interpersonal relationships among the management
and their subordinates tend to be lowered. For instance, in an organization where work
15
2.3
Herzbergs Two-Factor theory was used as a framework for this study. Herzbergs two-factor
theory is concerned with factors that are responsible for job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction. His two factor theory was derived from Abraham Maslows hierarchy of
16
needs. He conducted a widely reported motivational study following Maslows model using
203 Accountants and Engineers employed by firms in and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA which he tagged what do people want from their jobs? Herzberg (1967) argued that
an individuals relation to his work is a basic one and that his attitude to his work can
determine his success or failure. Subjects were asked to relate times when they felt
exceptionally good or exceptionally bad with their present job or any previous job.
Responses to the interviews were generally consistent and revealed that there were two
different sets of factors affecting motivation and work. This led to the two-factor theory of
motivation and job satisfaction. He categorized the responses and reported that people who
felt good about their jobs were different significantly from those who felt bad. Certain
characteristics that tend to relate to job satisfaction are achievement, recognition, the work
itself, advancement, responsibility and growth; while others that tend to relate to job
dissatisfactions are supervision, company policy and administration, working conditions and
interpersonal relations (Robbins1988).
Herzberg believed that two separate dimensions contribute to an employees behaviour at
work. Number one dimension is the hygiene factors that involve the presence or absence of
job dissatisfaction. These factors are related to job content; they are concerned with job
environment and extrinsic to the job itself. They are also known as maintenance factors. They
serve to prevent dissatisfaction. These factors include salary/pay, interpersonal relations with
supervisors, peer and subordinates, working conditions, company policy and administration,
status, security, personal life and supervision. If these factors are poor, work is dissatisfying.
When there are good hygiene factors, dissatisfaction is removed. Good hygiene factors
simply remove the dissatisfaction and do not cause people to become highly satisfied and
motivated in their work. They are needed to avoid unpleasantness at work and to deny unfair
treatment.
The second dimension of factors is motivating factors. They are the variables, which
actually motivate people and influence job satisfaction (Judge, et al 2001 and Luthans, 2002).
Motivators are high-level needs and they include aspects such as achievement, recognition,
work itself, responsibility, advancement or opportunity for growth. When these are absent,
workers are neutral toward work but when present, workers are highly motivated and
satisfied. These two dimensions of factors influence motivation. They are factors that induce
17
satisfaction on the job and those causing no satisfaction. Hygiene factors concentrate only in
the area of job dissatisfaction, while motivators focus on job satisfaction- for instance;
interpersonal conflicts will cause people to be dissatisfied and the resolution of interpersonal
conflicts will not lead to a high level of motivation and dissatisfaction; wherea, motivators
such as challenging assignments and recognition must be in place before employees will be
highly motivated to excel at their workplace (Daft, 2000: 540). Herzberg emphasized the
importance of job centred factors that increased interest in job enrichment including effort to
design jobs which would increase employees satisfaction.
In addition, Morrison (1993) argued that there are other motivators that do not promote a
sense of growth because they do not provide significant meaning to the worker. These
include group feelings, job security, status, feelings about fairness, unfairness, pride and
shame. Based on the above findings, the researchers observation in the workplace is that the
mentioned factors are important to employees. Employees do raise dissatisfaction if the
organization does not provide job security, status and when unfairness is exhibited.
Moreover, Herzberg discovered that intrinsic factors such as achievement, responsibility,
recognising the work itself and advancement seem to be related to job satisfaction. On the
other hand, when employees are not satisfied, they tend to cite extrinsic factors such as work
conditions, interpersonal relations, company policy and administration and supervision as
reasons for their not being satisfied. According to Herzberg, satisfaction is not the absence of
dissatisfaction because removing dissatisfying characteristics from the job does not
necessarily make the job more satisfying. He further argued that the opposite of
satisfaction is no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction
(Robbins, 1988).
the human relations movement. Hoppocks opening to his book aptly describes the emphasis
that scholars of the time placed on Job satisfaction, whether or not one finds his
employment sufficiently satisfactory to continue in it is a matter of the first importance to
employer and employee (p.5).
However, from this auspicious beginning, the job satisfaction literature has had its ebbs and
flows.
The concept of job satisfaction has been widely defined by different people. Locke, (1976)
specified that job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of ones job experiences.
Spector (1997) refined the definition of job satisfaction to constitute an attitudinal variable
that measures how a person feels about his or her job, including different facets of the job.
Rice, et al (1991) defined job satisfaction as an overall feeling about ones job or career in
terms of specific facets of job or careers (e.g. compensation, autonomy, coworkers). It can be
related to specific outcomes, for example, productivity. Many studies on the determinants of
job satisfaction in higher educational institutions in the developed world are available
(Hickson and Oshagbemi, 1999; Brewer and McMahan- Landers, 2003 and Turrel, Price and
Joyner, 2008). However, in developing countries such as Nigeria, efforts in this direction are
scarce. Examples of investigated jobs are: Satisfaction among heads of post-primary
institutions in Delta state, Nigeria (Whawho, 2008: Edem and Lawal, 2006).
Job satisfaction means the contentment of the servers because of their jobs. It is the personal
evaluation of the job conditions (the job itself, the attitude of the administration etc.) or the
consequences or (wages, occupational security etc.) acquired from the job (Fletcher and
Williams, 2006). According to another definition, job satisfaction is the phenomenon
ascertaining the contentment of the server and appearing when the qualifications of the job
and the demands of the servers match (Reichers, 2006). In line with these definitions, job
satisfaction might be handled as the consequence resulting from the comparison between the
expectations of the server from his job and the job in question which is performed. The
consequence may emerge as satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the server from the job.
When the server sees that his expectations are not met in the job environment, the job
dissatisfaction emerges. It leads to the decrease in the workforce productivity, organizational
commitment and commitment to the job and increase in the rates of the optional
19
discontinuation of the job ( Santhapparaj,Srini and Ling, 2005; Payne and Morrison, 2002;
Redfern,2005 and Denizer,2008; Gellatly, 2005; Sagie, 2002). Besides, the medical
conditions of the employees might be affected negatively. Lower job satisfaction in the
servers has been observed to bring about neurotic (insomnia and headache) and emotional
negativeness (stress, disappointment) (Denizer, 2008).
Nevertheless, the best proof to the deterioration of the works is the lower job satisfaction. It
causes secretly deceleration of the works, job success and job productivity and increases in
the workforce turnover (Iverson and Deery, 2007; Lum, 2006), occupational accidents and
complaints.
Job satisfaction can be described as ones feelings or state of mind regarding the nature of the
work. Job satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors such as the quality of the
academics relationships with their supervisors, the quality of the physical environment in
which they work and the degree of fulfillment in their work (Lambert, Pasupuleti, CluseTolar and Jennings, 2008).
Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences. Worthy of note in this definition by Locke
is the use of both cognition (appraisal) and affect (emotional state). Thus, Locke assumes that
job satisfaction results from the interplay of cognition and affect, or thoughts and feelings.
Recently, some organizational scholars have questioned this view, arguing that typical
measures of job satisfaction are more cognitive than affective in orientation - for instance,
Organ & Near (1985). Brief (1998) comments that organizational scientists often have been
tapping the cognitive dimension while slighting or even excluding the affective one. In
support of this argument, Brief and Roberson (1999) found that a purported measure of work
cognitions correlated more strongly with job satisfaction than did positive and negative
affectivity. The limitation with this study exposes the problem with the argument it seems
likely that job beliefs (cognitions) are as influenced by affect as is job satisfaction itself.
Indeed, Brief and Robersons results show that positive affectivity correlated more strongly
with their purported measure of cognitions than it did with job satisfaction itself. A recent
study by Weiss, Nicholas and Daus, (1999) revealed that when cognitions about the job and
20
mood were used to predict job satisfaction in the same equation, both were strongly related
to job satisfaction and the relative effects were exactly the same.
Thus, in evaluating our jobs, both cognition and affect appear to be involved. When we think
about our jobs, we have feelings about what we think. When we have feelings while at work,
we think about these feelings. Cognition and affect are thus closely related in our psychology
and our psychobiology. This is because when individuals perform specific mental operations,
a reciprocal relationship exists between cerebral areas specialized for processing emotions
and those specific for cognitive processes (Drevets and Raichle, 1998). There are cognitive
theories of emotion (Reisenzein & Schoenpflug, 1992) and emotional theories of cognition
Smith Lovin 1991).
Most scholars recognize that job satisfaction is a global concept that also comprises various
facets. The most typical categorization of facets; Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) considers
five: pay, promotions, coworkers, supervision and the work itself. Locke (1976) adds a few
other facets: recognition, working conditions and company and management. Fajana(2002)
refers to job satisfaction as the general job attitudes of employees. He divided job satisfaction
into five major components as including; attitude toward work group, general working
conditions, attitudes toward the organization, monetary benefits and attitude toward
supervision which he said is intricately connected with the individuals state of mind about
the work itself and life in general.
Some researchers separate job satisfaction into intrinsic and extrinsic elements where pay
and promotions are considered extrinsic factors and co-workers, supervision and the work
itself are considered intrinsic factors. Such an organizational structure is somewhat arbitrary;
other structures were offered by Locke (1976), such as events or conditions versus agents
(where agents are supervisors, co-workers and company or management), or work versus
rewards versus context.
Another definitional issue is whether job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are polar opposites
(exist on opposite ends of a bipolar continuum) or are separate concepts. The answer to this
issue is closely bound up in Herzbergs two-factor theory.
The concept of job satisfaction traditionally has been of great interest to social scientists
concerned with the problems of work in an industrial society. Many have been interested in
job satisfaction, for instance as a result of a personal value system which assumes that work
21
which enables satisfaction of ones needs furthers the dignity of the human individual;
whereas, work without these characteristic limits the development of personal potential and it
is therefore to be negatively valued. Other social scientists have been interested in this
concept because of evidence that has linked the degree of satisfaction with work to the
quality of ones life outside the work role- especially ones physical and mental health. Still
others were motivated to study job satisfaction out of a desire to improve productivity and
organizational functioning by improving the quality of work experiences of employees.
While these concerns have their bases in different perspectives, they share the recognition of
the importance of the job in the total life experience of the individual and the desirability of a
positive work experience.
Employees job satisfaction is not only influenced by his or her own perceptions of the
climate, but also by the shared perceptions of his or her work unit.
However, three types of explanations historically have been suggested to account for the
variations in the job satisfaction of workers. The first has sought to explain this variation
solely in terms of the personalities of individual workers and has attempted to establish a
relationship between measures of adjustment or neuroticism and job satisfaction (Vroom,
1964). While personality variables undoubtedly have some effects on job satisfaction, such
explanations are inadequate because they ignore the association of job satisfaction with
characteristics of the job.
A second explanation views variation in job satisfaction solely as a function of differences in
the nature of job people perform. In the past, this has been the numerically dominant view
and studies employing this type of reasoning generally deal with two sets of variables one a
measure of a work role characteristic(s), the other a measure of job satisfaction and attempt
to establish a causal relation from the former to the latter. There is a wide variation in the
types of work role characteristics that have been used. Some common ones include
characteristics of the organizational structure such as span of control and size (Georgopoulus,
1978), job content factors such as degree of specialization (Smith,1992), economic factors
(Givelch &Burns, 1994), social factors, promotional opportunities and hours of work
(Vroom, 1964, Herzberg,1967). Generally, these investigations have found that job
satisfaction varies, often considerable with one or more of these variables. A widely tested
22
theory of the determinants of job satisfaction that utilizes this type of explanation is
Herzbergs two factor theory (Herzberg, 1967).
The third explanation views that the satisfaction an individual obtains from a job is a function
not only of the objective properties of that job but also of the motives of the individual was
first suggested by Morse (1953). Leading exponents of this view are Terre & Durrhein
(1999) who reacted against the attempts of organizational social scientist to study issues of
worker satisfaction by adhering to a closed system model wherein organizations are seen as
the relevant context for explaining these issues. They argued that the question of satisfaction
from work cannot be thoroughly considered without knowledge of the meanings that
individuals impute to their work activity. Studies within this perspective (e.g. Klecker &
Loadman, 1999; Organ & Near, 1985; Brief, 1998) have contributed to our knowledge of job
satisfaction by attempting to establish empirically the ways in which the wants and
expectations that people attach to their work activity shape the attitudinal and behavioural
patterns of their working lives as a whole.
Job satisfaction refers to an overall affective orientation on the part of individuals toward
work roles, which they are presently occupying. It must be distinguished from satisfaction
with specific dimension of those work roles. This conceptualization implies that job
satisfaction is a unitary concept and that individuals maybe characterized by some sort of
vaguely defined attitude toward their total job situation. To say that job satisfaction is a
unitary concept however does not imply that the causes of this overall attitude are not
multidimensional. A person may be satisfied with one dimension of the job and dissatisfied
with another. The assumption underlying the present view is that it is possible for individuals
to balance these specific satisfactions against the specific dissatisfactions and thus arrive at a
composite satisfaction with the job as a whole (Hoppock, 1935). In line with these
considerations, a measure of overall job satisfaction was developed based on the responses of
workers to five questions concerning how satisfied they are with their jobs as a whole. These
questions included such direct inquires as how satisfied are you with your job as well as
such indirect measures as whether the worker would recommend the job to a friend, whether
the workers plans to look for a new job within the next year, whether the worker would take
the same job again if given a choice and how the job measures up to the type of job the
worker wanted when he took it.
23
A workers level of job satisfaction is a function of the range of specific satisfactions and
dissatisfactions that he/she experiences with respect to the various dimensions of work. It is
thus the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job as achieving or
facilitating the achievement of ones job values (Locke, 1969). This view of the process
underlying the variation in job satisfaction implies that two types of factors are operative:
perceived job characteristics, which represent the amount of satisfaction available from
particular dimensions of work and work values, which represent the meanings that
individuals attach to these perceived job characteristics.
According to Newstrom and Davis (1997), job satisfaction is a set of favourable feelings and
emotions with which employees view their work. Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn (1994:
144) see job satisfaction as the degree to which individuals feel positive or negative about
their jobs. According to this definition, the individual expresses satisfaction as he interacts
with his work environment and attaches meaning to what is happening around him.
Bester, Richter and Boshoff (1997) said job satisfaction is the match between what the
employee wants from the employer and the job and what he receives. It is the extent to which
the job meets the individuals needs, expectations and requirements. It is further indicated
that if employees are happy, it would lead to higher productivity, improved physical health
and promotes a more positive attitude towards the organization. This results in staff
remaining at the same institution instead of leaving frequently.
On the other hand, Silver, Poulin and Manning (1997) see job satisfaction as a
multidimensional system of interrelated variables that are divided into three categories, that
is;
Characteristics related to personal factors such as attitudes, values, etc.
Intrinsic rewards related to characteristics of job tasks such as opportunities to be
creative, problem solving challenges; and
Extrinsic rewards having to do with organizational characteristics such as wages,
working hours, benefits, organizational climate, etc.
Marriner Tomey (1996) viewed job satisfaction as a match between the employees interest
with the organizational goals. Job satisfaction includes aspects like satisfaction with work,
supervisor, work conditions, pay opportunities and practices in the organization. In practice,
24
the views of these authors are appropriate as employees generally feel satisfied when they
receive good pay and good supervision. Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1997) and Luthan
(1998) identify dimensions that are associated with job satisfaction, namely salaries, job
promotion opportunities, supervision and co-workers.
Situational theories, which hypothesize that job satisfaction results from the nature of
ones job or other aspects of the environment.
ii.
iii.
Interactive theories, which propose that job satisfaction results from the interplay of
the situation and personality.
Situational Theories
Many situational theories of job satisfaction have been proposed, but three stand out as most
influential. These are:
a. Herzbergs two-factor theory
b. Social information processing
c. Job characteristics model.
Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg (1967) argued that the factors that would lead to a satisfaction are often different
from those that would lead to dissatisfaction. This conclusion was based on a series of
interviews of workers. When asked to consider factors connected to a time when they felt
satisfied with their jobs, individuals generally talked about intrinsic factors such as the work
itself, responsibilities and achievements (motivators). Conversely, when workers were
asked to consider factors that led to dissatisfaction, most individuals discussed extrinsic
factors such as company policies, working conditions and pay (hygiene factors). Herzberg
further found that intrinsic factors were more strongly correlated with satisfaction, while
extrinsic factors were more strongly correlated with dissatisfaction. Based on these findings,
25
Herzberg argued that elimination of hygiene factors from a job would only remove
dissatisfaction, but not bring satisfaction. To bring out job satisfaction, the organization must
focus on motivator factors such as making the work more interesting, challenging and
personally rewarding.
However, despite its intuitive appeal, the two-factor theory has been roundly criticized by
researchers. There are many logical problems with the theory and many flaws in Herzbergs
methodology (see Locke, 1969). One of the main problems is that most of the support of the
theory comes from Herzbergs samples and methodology. Numerous empirical studies have
attempted to replicate and test Herzbergs findings with independent data and methods with
little success (e.g. Hulin & Smith, 1967). Contrary to Herzbergs claim, researches had
consistently shown that intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction (Carroll, 1973; Wernimont, 1967). Thus, though the theory continues to be
advocated by Herzberg and recommended for further study by others (Brief, 1998), these
attempts at resurrecting the theory run against considerable scientific evidence (Korman,
1971).
26
However, there are both indirect and direct supports for the validity of the models basic
proposition that core job characteristics led to more satisfying work. In terms of indirect
evidence, first, when individuals are asked to evaluate different facets of work such as pay,
promotion opportunity, coworkers etc, the nature of the work itself consistently emerges as
the most important job facet (Jurgensen, 1978]. Second of the major job satisfaction facets pay, promotion, opportunities, coworkers , supervision and the work itself- satisfaction with
the work itself is almost always the facet most strongly correlated with overall job
27
satisfaction (e.g. Rentsch and Steel, 1992].Thus if we are interested in understanding what
causes people to be satisfied with their jobs, the nature of the work (intrinsic job
characteristics) is the first place to start.
Research directly testing the relationship between workers report of job characteristics and
job satisfaction has produced consistently positive results. There have been several
quantitative reviews of the literature indicating positive results [Fried and Ferris, 1987;
Loher, Noe, Moeller and Fitzgerald, 1985]. Recently, Frye [1996] provided an update and
reported a true score correlation of 0.50 between job characteristics and job satisfaction. This
provides strong support for validity of the job characteristics model. Although the model did
not explicitly acknowledge individual differences in receptiveness to job characteristics in its
original formulation, earlier on the model was modified from a purely situational model to
more of an interactional model. According to Hackman and Oldham [1976], the relationship
between intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction depends on employees Growth
Need Strength [GNS], which is employees desire for personnel development, especially as it
applies to work. High GNS employees want their jobs to contribute to their personal growth,
and derive satisfaction from performing challenging and personally rewarding activities.
According to the model, intrinsic job characteristics are especially satisfying for individuals
who score high on GNS. Researches tend to support this aspect of the theory (Frye, 1996;
Hackman and Oldham, 1976 and James and Jones, 1980).
Across the 10 studies that have investigated the role of GNS in the relationship between
intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction, the relationship tends to be stronger for
employee with high GNS [average r =0.68] than for those with low GNS [average r =0 .38]
[Frye, 1996]. However, it is important to note that intrinsic job characteristics are related to
job satisfaction even for those who score low on GNS.
There are some limitations to the theory. First, most of the studies have used self- reports of
the job characteristics, which has garnered its share of criticism (Roberts and Glick, 1981) .It
is that subjective reports of job characteristics correlate more strongly with job satisfaction
than do objective reports. However, objective reports even with all of their measurement in
perfections still show consistently positive correlations with job satisfaction (Glick, Jenkins
and Gupta, 1986). Second, the relationship between perception of job characteristics and job
satisfaction appears to be bidirectional (James and Jones 1980; James and Tetrick, 1986).
28
Thus, it cannot be assumed that any association between job characteristics and job
satisfaction demonstrates a casual effect of job characteristics on job satisfaction. Third, there
is little evidence that the critical psychological states mediate the relationship between job
characteristics and outcomes as proposed. Finally, the formulaic combinations of the five
core characteristics had not been supported. Few or some researches indicate that simply
adding the dimensions works better (Arnold & House, 1980). This limitation does not seem
to be a serious problem with the theory, as whether an additive or multiplicative combination
of job dimensions works best does not undermine the potential usefulness of the theory.
Dispositional Approaches
The three principal approaches to studying job satisfaction, the dispositional approach to job
satisfaction is the most recently evolved and perhaps as a result, the most poorly developed.
However, there has been recognition of individual differences in job satisfaction for as long
as the topic of job satisfaction has been studied. For example, Hoppock (1935) found that
workers satisfied with their jobs were better adjusted emotionally than dissatisfied workers .
It was 50 years later though beginning with the publication of two influential studies by Staw
and colleagues (Staw and Ross, 1985; Staw, Bell and Clausen, 1986), that the dispositional
source of job satisfaction came into its own as a research area. Although, earlier on, this
literature had its critics [Cropanzano and James, 1990; Davies Blake and Pfeffer, 1989;
Gerhart, 1987; Gutek and Winter, 1992], that have waned. Few scholars would dispute the
contention that job satisfaction is, to a significant degree, rooted in individuals personalities.
Reflecting on this literature, it appears there are two broad categories of studies. The first
group called indirect studies, seek to demonstrate a dispositional basis to job satisfaction by
inference. Typically, in such studies, disposition or personality is not measured, but inferred
to exist from a process of logical deduction or induction. Staw and Ross (1985) for example,
inferred a dispositional source of satisfaction by observing that measures of job satisfaction
were reasonably stable over a two year [r =0.42, p<.01] three year [r=0.32, P<.01] and five
years [ r=0.29 p<.01] periods of time. Staw and Ross further discovered that job satisfaction
showed significant stability under situational change even when individuals who changed
neither occupation nor employer [ r = 0.37, p < .01]. Another indirect, albeit provocative
study, was authored by Arvey, Bouchard, Segal and Abraham [1989], who found significant
29
similarity in the job satisfaction levels of 34 pairs of monozygotic (identical) twins reared
apart from early childhood.
Though, this series of indirect studies can be credited for establishing interest in the
dispositional perspective, they have an obvious limitation they cannot demonstrate a
dispositional source of job satisfaction. For instance, stability in job satisfaction over time
can be due to many factors, only one of which is due to the personality of the individual
(Gerhart ,1987; Gutek and Winter, 1992). Similarly, since babies have no jobs they cannot be
born with job satisfaction. Thus, evidence showing similarity, in twins job satisfaction levels
is indirect evidence, since the similarity must be due to other factors (i.e. personality).
The other group of studies termed direct studies, relate a direct measure of a construct
purported to assess a personality trait to job satisfaction. The specific traits that have been
investigated have varied widely across studies. Staw, et al (1986) for example, utilized
clinical routings of children with respect to a number of adjectives assumed to assess
affective disposition (cheerful, warm and negative). Judge & Hulin (1993) and, Judge &
Locke (1993) used a measure, adapted from Weitz (1952), assessing employees reactions to
neutral objects common to everyday life. Despite the predictive validity of these measures for
job satisfaction, most researches had focused on other measures.
One group of studies had focused on positive and negative affectivity (PA and NA).
According to Watson, Clark and Colleagues, PA is characterized by high energy, enthusiasm
and pleasurable engagement; whereas, NA is characterized by distress, unpleasurable
engagement and nervousness (Watson, Clark &Tellegen, 1988). An interesting finding in the
literature supporting the distinction between PA and NA is that they appear to display
different patterns of relationships with other variables (Watson, 2000). The general trend
seems to be that PA is more strongly related to positive outcomes, while NA is more strongly
associated with negative outcome. Several studies have related both PA and NA to job
satisfaction (Agho, Mueller and Price 1993; Brief, Butcher and Roberson, 1995; Brief,
Burke, George, Robinson and Webster 1988; Levin and Stokes, 1989; Necowitz &
Roznowski, 1994; Watson and Slack 1993]. Thoresen & Judge [1997) reviewed the 29
studies that have investigated the PA job satisfaction relationship and the 41 studies that
have investigated the NA job satisfaction relationship and found true score correlations of
30
0.52 and -0.40 respectively. Thus, it appears that both PA and NA are generally related to job
satisfaction.
Recently, Judge, Locke and Durham [1997] drawing from several different literature
introduced the construct of core self- evaluations. According to Judge et al [1997], core selfevaluations are fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their
functioning in the world. Judge et al, further argued that core self evaluation is a broad
personality construct comprising several specific traits:
i. Self esteem;
ii. Generalized self-efficacy;
iii. Locus of control; and
iv. Neuroticism or emotional stability.
Although research on the dispositional source of job satisfaction has made enormous strides,
but considerable room for further development exists. David-Blake and Pfeffer (1989)
criticized dispositional research for its failure to clearly define or carefully measure affective
disposition. To some extent, this criticism is still relevant. As the above review attests, even
those that have directly measured affective disposition have done so with fundamentally
different measures. What traits and measures are best suited to predicting job satisfaction,
there have been very few efforts to compare, contrast and integrate these different
conceptualizations and measures of affective disposition. Brief, George and colleagues focus
on mood at work and have used positive and negative affectivity as dispositional constructs.
Weiss, Cropanzano and colleagues emphasized affective events at work and the emotions
and cognitions these events produced; Judge et al focus on core self- evaluations. The
differences in these approaches are important. However, we should not assume that they are
oriented toward different objectives- all seek to better understand the dispositional source of
job attitudes.
2.4
Interactive Theories
Interactive theories of job satisfaction are those that consider both person and situation
variables. These theories include the Cornell Integrative Model and Lockes Value-Percept
theory.
31
33
Motivation is multifaceted: that is to say that two factors are of great importance what gets people activated (arousal) and the force of an individual to engage in a
desired behaviour (direction of choice of behaviour).
The purpose of motivation theories is to predict behaviour in other words, motivation
is not the behaviour itself and it is not all about the performance. It concerns actions
and the internal and external forces that influenced a persons choice of action. Based
on these characteristics, he defined motivation as the degree to which an individual
wants and chooses to engage in a certain specified behaviour.
Generally, motivation can be defined as the arousal, direction and persistence of behaviours.
It can be seen as a way in which urges, drives, desires, , aspirations, needs influence the
choice of alternative in the behaviour of human beings. This is concerned with what prompts
people to take action, what influences their choice of action and why they persist in doing so
overtime.
According to Greenberg and Baron (1993), motivation is seen as a set of processes that
arouse, direct and maintain human behaviour towards attaining a goal. Beaufort and Longest
(1996) see motivating factors as typically intrinsic factors because they drive a person to
perform the work itself. They are related to the sense of achievement, recognition for
achievement, work itself, responsibility, advancement potential and possibility for growth
(Marriner Tomey, 1996). Herzbergs motivating factors are also supported by McClelland
three-need theory because he also identifies achievement as one of the factors that directs a
persons behaviour in the workplace (Robbins, 1988). Maslows hierarchy also supports
Herzbergs theory since he also stresses the esteem needs which include achievement, status
and recognition.
2.5.2 Achievement
According to Robbins (1988), achievement is a drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set
of standards and strive to succeed. On the other hand, Newstrom and Davis (1997) see
achievement as a drive to overcome challenges and obstacles in the pursuit of goals.
Achievement is present when employees have feelings of personal accomplishment or the
need to accomplish. For achievement to be present as a motivation factor, job must be
challenging and interesting. For the individual to experience achievement, he or she must be
35
able to succeed, have abilities to solve job related problems and perform effectively. The
manager can increase opportunity for on-job achievement by the delegation of authority and
responsibility, involvement in planning and goal-setting, availability of information
concerning performance and individual control of the quality of job performance.
Achievement- oriented employees enjoy getting things done and moving to the next
objective. They place greater value on the level of their own capabilities. They seek job
mastery, take pride in developing and using their problem-solving skills and strive to be
creative. When confronted with obstacles in their work, these employees perform their jobs
capably because of the inner satisfaction they feel for a job well done.
It is important for managers to realize that duties should be delegated to their subordinates in
order to increase their desire to achieve more. In turn, their subordinates motivation would
increase. Delegation of duties helps employees to utilize their talents and also contributes to
personal growth and development (Marriner Tomey, 1996). Based on this information
about achievement, managers that implement the above points in their organizations facilitate
job satisfaction and those managers that do not take into consideration the points mentioned
above demotivate employees which could lead to failure in achieving organizations goals. In
such situations, employees experience a lack of satisfaction and may absent themselves from
the workplace.
2.5.3 Recognition
According to Gerber et al. (1998), recognition refers to the respect an employee enjoys
among colleagues in the organization, which is the result of the status value of the job. It also
refers to the recognition an organization can afford on employee for good performance.
Recognition can come from the organization, managers, fellow employees or the public
(Costley and Todd, 1987). Recognition may be provided in many forms such as verbal or
written, praise, pay, increases and bonuses. When managers use recognition and rewards to
encourage desired behaviours in their organization, they keep good employees in their
organization. The management can use the following rewards to recognize and promote good
work, give positive feedback, increase in salary, autonomy, opportunity to participate in
goalsetting and decision making as well as peer recognition by announcing achievements at
staff meetings and using the organizations news letter to recognize achievements. The
36
management can also give employees challenging assignments and seek interesting
opportunities for them either within the unit or somewhere else within the organization.
Recognition promotes self-confidence and raises the self-esteem of employees whereby
productivity is increased (Tappen, 1995).
In academic environments, employees are to be made aware that their seniors appreciate their
efforts. If good work is recognized either through giving positive feedback or
announcement of good work at staff meetings, they experience a sense of satisfaction if their
peers are aware of their achievements.
Organizations that do not give back positive feedback and do not involve employees in
decisions regarding their jobs, increase a sense of no satisfaction among employees.
Employees may feel that they are not seen as active members of the organization but passive
participants in contracts to employees who function better when they receive constructive
feedback about their performance (Tappen, 1995).
2.5.4 Responsibility
This refers to what must be done to complete a task and the obligation created by the
assignment (Marriner Tomey, 1996). Responsibilities are normally determined by the
employer to facilitate achievement of goals (Muller, 1996). The management and the senior
academics of departments should make sure that responsibilities are allocated according to
expertise and abilities of the individual. Departments/units responsibilities should be
specific as to whether they are daily or weekly responsibilities that employees should
perform to prevent a person from being overloaded. The managers must make sure that
responsibilities are standardized for each job level and that each employee has a copy of his
or her job description (Muller, 1996).
Generally, managers encourage subordinates to accept responsibility by making sure that
they are aware of the capabilities and chacteristics of their subordinates. If subordinates
physical abilities are ignored during delegation of responsibilities in the unit, demotivating
consequences may occur (Muller,1996). When managers consider subordinates knowledge
and skills, they promote feelings of pride in the subordinates and in turn facilitate
independent functioning. If subordinates capabilities, knowledge and skills are considered,
37
employees enjoy their work and thus productivity will be raised to higher levels among
employees (Muller, 1996).
In the academic environment, it is imperative that responsibilities are delegated according to
the scope of activities and contents of the outline, and to people with the necessary skills to
perform the job. If employees capabilities are not recognized, or are inappropriate for the
responsibilities delegated, they may feel frustrated because they lacked the skill to carry out
delegated responsibilities and may experience no satisfaction. If they have required skill and
they know what to do, they tend to work hard and they become motivated in what they do
(Muller, 2001).
39
pressures,
excessive
work,
understaffing,
uncooperative
heads
of
processes. The attitude scale is generally used for the job satisfaction measurements. One of
the important scales accepted by the majority is Likert attitude scale. The questionnaires
which are developed are generally concentrated on these scales (Ezieke, 2000).
eliminates breakdowns that occurs when policy action are passed by ordinary words of
mouth.
Worthy of note again is that policies should be fairly applied to all employees so that they
will not feel any discriminatory treatment, which automatically lead to dissatisfaction; but if
they feel that policies are applied consistently to all employees, they will feel a sense of
belonging to an organization (Marriner Tomey, 1996).
Moreover, poor communication and inadequate explanations of decisions affecting jobs will
lead to dissatisfaction; hence, employees should participate in decision-making. When
employees are allowed to make their inputs, they will feel free to participate in decisionmaking and will see themselves as part of the organization. When decision authority is
concentrated in the hands of a few people, employees feel that they are relatively powerless
and consequently feel frustrated (Greenberg & Baron, 1993). To ensure that all employees
are well informed of policies and procedures within their organization and secure their cooperation, two-way communication is to be practiced in organizations to allow dissemination
of policies and any changes that are taking place (Booyens, 1998).
Reference to the above statement, communication of policies to employees is important. If
policies are not communicated, employees find themselves in a difficult situation as they are
expected to accomplish the organizations goals. Employees may feel frustrated because they
do not have guidelines that spell out their responsibilities or form of action and they might
experience job dissatisfaction. Communication of policies can be done at unit and
organizational level. Some organizations do not involve their employees in policy
formulation, which makes it difficult for employees to implement such policies because they
were not involved in decision-making and do not always understand the reason behind set
policies. Involvement of employees in policy formulation promotes understanding and
motivation and leads to job satisfaction.
2.6.3 Supervision
According to McFarland and Morris (1984), supervision is a dynamic process in which
employees are encouraged to participate regarding activities designed to meet organizational
goals and aid in the development of an employee. Supervisors/heads of units or departments
also control work in their department for instance, academic works, lecture notes, and
43
project writings by the academic staff. They further state that supervision is divided into
technical skills which may involve the use of knowledge, procedures, techniques and
equipment to perform their task. These skills can be learned through training and education.
Employees should possess these skills to ensure the achievement of organizational goals to
prevent hazards and/or accidents that might arise due to lack of knowledge.
Furthermore, McFarland, et al described conceptual skill as another important part of
supervision, which involves knowledge and understanding of the job based on organizational
goals and objectives. Therefore, it becomes imperative for managers to create a positive
organizational climate where employees are encouraged to update their skills in order to give
their best in their chosen career.
Employees can be given opportunities to update their knowledge through training, induction,
orientation procedures as well as providing in-service education and on-the-job training
(Gillies, 1982). Again, managers and supervisors of units should identify areas of weaknesses
and create opportunities where employees can be trained to improve their skills. If they lack
the skills of doing the job properly, they feel frustrated and dissatisfied. A supervisor
perceived to have poor supervisory skills and is believed to be incompetent, selfish and
uncaring will promote dissatisfaction in his or her unit. Seeing supervisorss needs
possessing good supervisory qualities, it becomes important for them to attend workshops
and in-service education in order to promote subordinate-supervisor relationships (Greenberg
& Baron, 1993).
According to Carrell, Elbert and Hatfield (1998) satisfaction is promoted where there is good
supervision and the employee perceives the supervisor as helpful, competent and effective.
Poor supervision may arise within the work environment when the supervisor is insensitive,
incompetent and uncaring, leading to a negative effect on employees job satisfaction. Poor
supervision includes unfair treatment by the supervisor and failure to correspond to
employees problems, which in turn lead to job dissatisfaction (Chung, 1997). An effective
supervisor recognizes his employees needs for responsibility, recognition and growth. A
good supervisor supplies information and advice to employees when necessary and also
emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability while providing a climate of freedom
for work accomplishment.
44
45
2.6.5 Salaries
From the point of view of Morrison (1993) low salaries promote dissatisfaction and will
make workers feel frustrated. Salaries are the actual money employees receive from their
employers for the job done or services rendered. It becomes important, therefore, that
employees be informed on how they will be compensated for good work. Gibson, et al
(1997) indicated that they might perceive the amount of pay received by an employee as
unfair or fair. Employees normally expect equity among the salaries that are received by
them and their colleagues who hold the same post description. Employees often view their
salaries as a reflection of how management views their contribution to the organization.
Managers should communicate to employees how good performance is rewarded. Greenberg
and Baron (1993) argue that organizations reward system are highly related to job
satisfaction, which means it is important for the organization to make employees aware of
these rewards so as to eliminate misunderstanding among the employer and employees.
Unclear reward systems lead to conflict and unfair practices within the workplace. According
to Chung (1997), poor salaries that are uncompetitive would lead to unhappiness and
discontent. Organizations should try as much as possible to make salaries competitive
because salary does not motivate employees to work hard and to experience job satisfaction.
Uncompetitive salaries demotivate employees and lead to job dissatisfaction (Banjoko,
2006). Employees in organizations that provide uncompetitive salaries tend to leave their
organizations and move out to other organizations that provide competitive salaries.
2.6.6 Status
Greenberg and Baron (1995) stated that status in organization is recognized as both formal
and informal in nature. Formal status refers to attempts made to differentiate between the
degree of formal and informal authority given to employees by an organization. This is
accomplished through the use of status symbols for instance symbols that reflect the
position of an individual within an organizations hierarchy. Examples of status symbol
include job titles like Director and reserved parking spaces. Status symbols serve to remind
organizational members of their relative roles, thereby reducing uncertainty and provide
stability to the social order.
46
On the other hand, informal status refers to prestige accorded individuals with certain
characteristics that are not formally dictated by the organization. Halloram and Brenton
(1987) stated that receiving a higher status is a symbol of success, thus people feel that they
only experience success when they attain a higher status. Achieving a higher status brings
feelings of true success, but only when feelings of genuine achievement are experienced.
Genuine achievement requires constant challenge. When genuine challenges are not offered,
it will result in stagnation and frustration. Lower level status does affect achievement because
there is little opportunity for creativity, judgment and initiation to come into play. The higher
the job levels, the greater the opportunity will be to tackle new problems. Judge, et al,( 2001)
states that people with a high need to achieve are likely to seek tasks where they are fully
responsible, they set goals for themselves and value competent colleagues.
Based on the information above, if a person moves from one level of job position to another,
he or she sees himself or herself in another level of job hierarchy, feeling honoured and
tending to work harder. If no promotional opportunities are available, employees experience
burnout and tend to be dissatisfied.
Organizational climate comprises of cognate sets of attitudes, values and practices that
characterize the members of a particular organization. Xaba (1996) defined organizational
climate as consciously perceived environmental factors subject to organizational control.
Low (1997) explained the term climate to describe the attitudes, feelings and social process
of organizations. According to him, climate in this view falls into three major and wellknown leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissezfaire. Kaczka and Kirk (1978)
defined organizational climate as a set of attributes, which can be perceived within a
particular organization, department or unit.
The behavioural science literature is replete with theories and empirical research focusing on
employee behaviour as a function of the simultaneous variation in both organizational
dimensions and individual characteristics Hellriegel et al, 1984). Apparently neither
individual organization dimensions (climate) nor individual characteristics (job satisfaction,
tension, role clarity), by themselves, explained a substantial amount of the observed variation
in job satisfaction or organizational effectiveness criteria. The relationship of organizational
climate to individual behaviour often emphasizes the role of employee perceptions of these
dimensions as intervening variables (Schneider, 1982). Likerts approach to the study of
organizations illustrates the importance of employee perceptions, e.g. his interaction
influence mode/relates causal, intervening and end-result variables (Locke, 1976 & Likert,
1967). Causal variables like climate dimensions and leadership techniques interact with
personality to produce perceptions, and it is through assessment of these perceptions that the
relationship between causal and end-result variables may be analyzed.
Several studies have focused on perceptually based measures of climate dimensions and job
satisfaction, Friedlander and Margulies (1968), using perception data from an electronics
firm, studied the multiple impact of organizational climate components and individual job
values on workers satisfaction.
They found that climate had the greatest impact on satisfaction with interpersonal
relationships on a job, a moderate impact upon satisfaction with recognizable advancement in
the organization, and relatively less impact upon self-realization from task involvement.
Pritchard and Karasick (1993) studied 76 managers from two different industrial
organizations. They found climate dimensions to be moderately strongly related to such job
49
the events occurring around him and the characteristics of the organization, and
(b)
To Pruden (1989), organization climate means the set of characteristics that describe an
organization and that: (a) distinguish the organization from other organizations, (b) are
relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behaviour of people in the organization.
Litwin and Stringer (1978) considered this definition deficient in terms of individual
perceptions, noting that the climate of an organization is interpreted by its members in ways,
which impact their attitude and motivation and thus proposed the following:
Organizational climate is a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an
organization that: (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behaviour and (c)
can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (of attributes) of
the organization.
Churchill, Ford and Walker (1994) focused on the properties of climate and offered a
definition based upon a review of the factors that might contribute to climate in an
organization:
50
However, these definitions have some common elements. Organizational climate is usually
considered to be a molar concept in the same sense that a particular organization, while
certainly not unchanging, nevertheless has an air of permanence or at least some continuity
over time. Phenomenologically, climate is external to the individual, yet cognitively the
climate is internal to the extent that it is affected by individual perceptions. Climate is realitybased and thus is capable of being shared in the sense that observers or participants may
agree upon the climate of an organization or group, although this consensus may be
constrained by individual differences in perceptions. Thus commonality of perceptions is
considered by some researchers to differentiate climate from other organizational variables
such as satisfaction. The climate of an organization potentially impacts the behaviour of
people in system.
current situations that are taking place in the organization and current situations can influence
employees performance, depending on how these employees view their current situation in
organizations as positive or negative, e.g. unfair labour practices. Employees can thus view
their current situations in organizations as positive or negative. Their views will depend on
how they perceive their organizational climate. Moorhead & Griffin (1998) admitted that
management can manipulate the climate but it will affect the behaviour of employees in turn.
From the definition above, employees interacting with each other can also reveal the climate
of the organization. If there are no good linkages between workgroups, the climate will be
full of conflict, poor communication and lack of commitment and understanding among
groups.
Organizational climate can have positive and negative effects on employees. A climate that
does not promote communication upwards, downwards and literally would lead to fear of
expression of ideas and opinions. Absence of an open-door policy (situations where
employees are not allowed to come to the manager with anything that is bothering them) can
also have negative effects on the climate.
However, organizational climate differs from organizational culture. Organizational climate
is the feeling that is conveyed by the physical layout, the way participants interact and the
members of the organization conduct themselves with customers or other outsiders (Luthans,
1998). The definition emphasizes interaction among employees since people can see for
themselves if the climate of the organization is positive or negative by looking at how the
employees of that institution interact with each other. On the other hand, organizational
culture is the customary way of thinking and behaving that is shared by all members of the
organization and must be learned and adopted by newcomers before they can be accepted in
the organization. This implies culture can be learned, shared and transmitted. It is also a
combination of assumptions, values, symbols, language and behaviour that manifest the
organizations norms and values. Managers transmit organizational culture to all members of
the organization so that they are sure that all employees have the same understanding of their
culture; thereby they are expected to internalize the organizational culture so that they all
function at the same level.
52
Bunker and Wijnberg (1985), view organizational climate differently from the other authors.
They see it as a generalized perception of the organization that the person forms as a result of
numerous experiences in the workplace. From this definition, it can be deduced that
organizational climate comprises different meanings to different employees working in a
particular situation because each employee attaches different meaning to different situations.
Climate then, can influence the behaviour of people found within the organization. For
instance, an employee experiencing job dissatisfaction may be absent himself or herself from
the workplace. Not only that, Keuter, Byrne, Voell and Larson (2000) support Bunker and
Wijnberg (1985) in that they see organizational climate as a set of measurable properties of
the work environment perceived directly or indirectly by the people who worked in the
environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behaviour. Both authors see
organizational climate as influential to the behaviour of employees in an organization.
Peterson (1995) views work environment differently i.e. he postulated that organizational
climate cannot be described as psychologically neat and orderly if they present ambiguous
and conflicting stimuli that organizational members should be viewed as active perceivers
and interpreters of their organizational climate. These perceived environments could be
viewed as psychologically meaningful descriptions of contingencies that individuals use to
apprehend order and predict outcomes and gauge the appropriateness of their behaviour.
Schneider and Rentsch (2008) stated that there are bound to be differences in the way junior
academics perceive their organizational climate in relation to their counterparts. Those junior
academics are likely to experience variables in their organizational climate as negative
compare to the way senior academics will perceive these variables. Glisson and James (2006)
and Chan, (2008) noted that perceptions emerge as a result of the activities, interactions and
experiences of the individual which in the case of senior academics are more favourable to
them than the junior academics who attach meaning to different situations most times
negatively.
are exposed to the same work context and situation (James & Tetrick, 2006). Organisational
climate emerges from these idiosyncratic interpretations of the work environment when
individuals within a particular unit (e.g group, organization) share similar perceptions of the
situation. Only when individuals agree on their perceptions of the work environment can
their individual perceptions be meaningfully aggregated to represent trait- or organizational
level climate (James, 2004; Klein et al., 2004). Therefore, the relationship between
psychological and organizational climate can be described as compositional in that both
constructs reference the same content but describe qualitatively different phenomenon at the
individual and unit levels of analysis (Chan,2008; James, 2004). Psychological climate is a
property of the individual but when shared across individuals within a unit or organization,
the aggregate of the responses represents the construct of unit or organizational climate
(Glisson & James, 2006). As such, organizational climate is purported to be an emergent
property because it originates in the cognition and perceptions of individuals, as well as
amplified through interactions and exchanges with other unit members to manifest as a
higher-level collective phenomenon (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Different explanations have been offered about how individuals interpretations of the
organizational environment emerge and are transformed into shared perceptions (Ostroff, et
al.,2007; Schneider & Rentsch, 2008). From a structural perspective, it has been suggested
that unit or organizational characteristics such as size and structure (Payne & Mansfield,
2003) as well as consistency, clarity and salience in policies, practices and procedures (e.g
Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) can establish a common reality that provides the basis for shared
perceptions. Further through the process of attraction, selection and attrition (Schneider &
Rentsch, 2008), an organization is likely to comprise people with similar views and attributes
so that individuals tend to perceive and experience the work environment similarly.
Communications and repeated social interactions among members of the same trait or
organization influence individual views and can also contribute to the evolvement of shared
perceptions and meaning (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2007; Morgeson & Hofmann, 2009).
The notion of within group agreement as a precondition for unit or organizational climate
does not necessarily mean that there is perfect agreement among individuals on climate. In
fact, most studies that have investigated group or organizational climate have found that there
54
is still some variability in perceptions within groups (Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro & Tordera,2008;
Lindell& Brandt, 2000; Schneider, Salvaggio & Subirats,2002).
A Configural Approach to Unit-Level or Organisational Climate
A great deal of attention has been devoted to distinguishing between the objective versus
perceptual nature of climate (Glick, 2005; James, Joyce & Slocum, 2008) and between
psychological and organizational climate (Jones & James, 1999) as well as to methodological
issues pertaining to the aggregation of individual climate perceptions to represent
organizational climate (Chan,2008; Klein,et al.,2000). The controversies surrounding these
issues have largely been resolved (Schneider, 2008). However, little attention has been
directed at how best to capture climate as a system-wide variable in an organization. The
notion that multiple climates exist within an organization has been widely accepted
(Schneider, 2008). Yet, empirical research has tended to examine a single climate dimension
or examine the relative importance of several dimensions of climate in a single study. Ostroff
and her colleagues (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff et al., 2007) have suggested that a
configural approach (Doty, Glick & Huber, 2003; Meyer, Tsui & Hinnings, 2003) might be
fruitful in this context. Configurations can broadly be defined as conceptually distinct
characteristics that commonly occur together (Meyer, et al., 2003). They allow for examining
multiple characteristics simultaneously while accounting for the interrelationships and
interactions among them. Applied to the study of organizational climate, organizations or
work units would be characterized by several distinct profiles across multiple climates. In
this case, the focus of measurement shifts from examining independent climate dimensions to
patterns or systems of interrelated climate dimensions.
Configural approaches have proven useful in other areas of organizational research,
particularly in human resource management (HRM). Individual HRM practices have been
combined to form unique patterns of practices that depict different configurations, and these
different configurations have been related to effectiveness outcomes,(e.g Delery & Doty,
2006; Doty et al, 2003; Ichniowski, Shaw & Prennushi,2007). This body of research is based
on the assumption that different HRM practices are interrelated and interact as a system in
achieving their effects. Examining single practices or sets of practices simultaneously in a
regression does not allow for capturing complementary effects and interrelations among the
practices- only by examining configurations across all practices can we determine whether
55
the entire system of practices, taken together, explains more than the sum of the effects of the
individual practices (Ichniowski et al,2007). Individual practices are believed to have
limited ability to impact a particular outcome. Rather, in combination, the system of practices
enables organizations to achieve higher performance (Becker & Gerhart, 2006). Further, it is
also assumed that some patterns or configurations can be equally effective or equifinal
(Delery Doty, 2006; Meyer et al.., 2003).
Moving from HRM configurations to unit or organizational climate configurations is
reasonable because climates are largely based on the perceptions of HR practices, policies
and procedures (Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 2000; Ostroff & Bowen, 2004). Configurations
may provide a more integrative view of the overall climate in a particular unit or organization
than focusing on single climates, or the independent or relative impact of several climate
dimensions. Coherent patterns of multiple climates correspond to Lewin, Lippit and Whites,
(1999) notion of climate as a Gestalt of the social environment. It is also reasonable to
assume that different climate dimensions interact and are interrelated in non-linear ways,
which can be captured by a configural approach. Alternatively, all possible interactions
among climates considered increases, the number of interaction terms increases
exponentially, which may not only requires very large sample sizes, but also makes the
interpretation cumbersome.
56
Although new to the area of climate, the idea of comparing the relative importance of
individual and group-level attributes on individual attitudes and behaviour has a long history
in sociology and education. Sociologists, who have supported the group effects theory, have
argued that groups can (and do) have effects over and beyond those of the attributes of the
group members (e.g. Blau, 2000; Merton & Kitt, 2005). For example, Blau (2000) found that
workers in public assistance agencies showed more service-oriented behavior when they
worked in groups with strong pro-client values than those who worked in weak pro-client
value groups, after holding constant their individual pro-client values. Blau interpreted the
social values that prevailed in the work groups as external constraints upon the thinking and
acting of its members. Workers were not only guided by their own values, but also sought
social approval of colleagues by acting in congruence with the prevailing group values.
Similar notions are evident in social information processing theory (Salancik &Pfeffer, 2008)
whereby job-related attitudes are purportedly based on both individuals perceptions (which
are driven by their earlier experiences and behaviour) as well as on the immediate social
context (e.g. perceptions of co-workers). The complexity of the work environment expect
people to rely on social cues in addition to their own perceptions in order to make sense out
of the situation. In line with this argument, theories on sense making processes have stated
that the cognitive representation of the organizational experience is not only determined by
individual patterns of thinking and understanding but also by influential relationships and
organizational norms (Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 2004).
A number of early studies tested the social versus individual bases for job attitudes by
comparing the influence of individual demographic variables (e.g. age, gender, tenure) on
social structural variables such as group, department or division affiliations (Herman,
Dunham, & Hulin, 2005). Results showed that group affiliations explained individual
attitudes better than individual demographic characteristics. More recently, Liao and Chuang
(2004) found that store-level service climate was related to individual service performance
after accounting for individual-level personality traits such as conscientiousness and
extraversion. However, in these studies, the individual-level and unit-level variables
represented different constructs, rather than commensurate or compositional constructs at
different levels of analysis (Chan, 2008). Few studies in organizational research have
simultaneously examined the impact of similar constructs at different levels of analysis on
57
individual outcomes. For example, Mathieu and Kohler (2000) demonstrated that group-level
absence is positively related to individual absence above and beyond individual-level
antecedents of absenteeism. Similarly, Blau (2000) reported positive effects of group-level
employee lateness on individual lateness after controlling for individual-level antecedents
such as work-related attitudes, illnesses and accidents, weather and work-family conflict.
Although these studies included similar constructs at different levels of analysis, the
individual-level outcome (e.g. individual absence) was related to a compositional
organizational-level predictor (e.g. organizational-level absence). Thus, it is unknown
whether the analogous constructs at two levels (e.g. individual absence and organizational
absence, or psychological climate and organizational climate) have independent and relative
effects on separate outcomes such as job satisfaction. A comparison between individual and
unit-level effects of functionally similar constructs is needed.
promote a positive organizational climate. When managers utilize these actions, the attitudes
of the employees will change and focus on the goals of the organization.
59
Lockburn & Terry (2004) support Booyens (1998) view as he also indicated that
development of organizational goals, openness through communication and the provision
of opportunities for growth and an adequate career ladder will promote positive
organizational climate.
McNeeseSmith (1999) reported in her study that academics indicated that they become
more productive when the atmosphere in the organization is pleasant, and enjoy working
where the employer helps them to do their best.
A number of studies that investigated this relationship model are Downey, et al, 1974;
Johannesson, 1971; Litwin and Stringer, 1988; Lafollette and Sins, 1975; Lawler, Hall and
Oldham, 1974; Pritchard and Karasick, 1973 and Schneider and Snyder, 1975.
James and Jones (1984) were critical of perception measurement of climate. They believed
that variance in perceptually measured climate scores has not been demonstrated to be related
to differences in situation rather than simply to differences in individuals. Thus, a danger
exists that the measurements of climate duplicate other individual differences measurements
such as job satisfaction. This position would seem to be supported by a multitrait
multimethod study, which concluded that climate scores were measuring the same constructs
as role ambiguity, role conflict, job satisfaction, and leadership scores.
In a study of 76 managers from two organizations, Pritchard and Karasick (1973) found
organizational climate as more highly related to individual job satisfaction than individual
performance. They considered this result to have significant implications for organizations.
Guion (1973) took an exception to their interpretation, by discussing that if perceptually
measured organizational climate is an individual rather than an organizational attribute, then
perceived organization climate may be identical with employees attitudes or job satisfaction.
Guion concludes:
when the construct used is perceived organizational climate, the
Pritchard and Karasick hypothesis reduces to job satisfaction
measured by one method is a function of job satisfaction measured by
another one, and it is not surprising finding that one measure of job
60
short form of the Agency Climate Questionnaire (ACQ). The Job Description Index (JDI)
was used to assess job satisfaction. In addition, job satisfaction was measured indirectly
using a need satisfaction index. A number of interesting findings came from this research.
1. Responses to two measures of satisfaction were more related to each other than they
were to a measure of climate.
2. Climate and satisfaction measures were correlated for people in some positions in the
agencies but not for other positions.
3. People agreed more on the climate of their agency than they did on their satisfaction.
4. Neither satisfaction nor climate was strongly correlated with production data.
5. Satisfaction, but not climate, was correlated with turnover data.
6. Persons who described the climate of their agency in the most positive way were not
necessarily the most satisfied.
In an attempt to move toward a resolution of this debate, Schneider and Snyder offered the
following position:
a logical and empirical distinction between the concept of organizational
climate and job satisfaction is possible if:
1. Organizational climate is conceptualized as a characteristic of organizations, which
is reflected in the descriptions employees make of the policies, and conditions,
which exist in the work environment.
2. Job satisfaction is conceptualized as an affective response of individuals, which is
reflected in the evaluations employees make of all individually salient aspects of
their job and the organization for which they work.
At this time, whether organizational climate (particularly as it is measured perceptually)
causes, mediates, or is the same concept as job satisfaction is still an open question. Research
results are contradictory and lend themselves to much subjective interpretation. Since the
one-shot correlation designs used in many of the field investigations of this issue allowed
rival hypotheses for many of the findings, it appears that the definitive research needed to
resolve this problem remains to be concluded.
62
2.8
Summary
The chapter looked at the framework on which the research will be based. The theoretical
framework chosen for the study is Herzberg two-factor theory, which sees people as having
two sets of needs: motivators and hygiene factors. The hygiene factors also known as
dissatisfiers are aspects such as organizational policy and administration, supervision, salary
and work conditions, whereas satisfiers are aspects such as achievements, recognition,
work itself, responsibility and development.
Again the chapter looked at the literature review that addressed issues pertaining to
organizational climate. The purpose is to identify factors within the organizational climate
that can lead to job dissatisfaction and to see how these factors can influence the performance
of employees. Those factors identified evaluate the extent to which managers can utilize the
organizational climate to increase job satisfaction and also use these factors to eliminate job
dissatisfaction in the workplace.
Key concepts had been identified and explained in the chapter to facilitate understanding of
all the necessary concepts in the study.
However, not all the questions raised for this study under the research questions were
answered. The review succeeded in giving us the meaning of job satisfaction as indicated by
different authors. The various facets of job satisfaction, the theories of job satisfaction
antecedents, job characteristics model, the need for promotion of job satisfaction, the
motivating factors (e.g. achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth and development
etc.), and the barriers leading to dissatisfaction were enumerated and discussed.
Also, organizational climate and the various elements involved were identified including the
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate, and the likely factors
experienced by lecturers that could contribute to job satisfaction.
Moreover, while a number of the research questions raised at the beginning of this research
have been satisfactorily answered in the reviewed literature, quite a number of them are not
answered yet and these will constitute the focus of the rest of this study as well as the survey.
Such questions include;
63
64
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction:
The objective of this study was to identify elements within the organizational climate that
may cause job satisfaction among academic staff and to make recommendations for
improving on them.
This section is to discuss the procedures for gathering data, the study design, and the
methods to be adopted in analyzing the data.
3.2
Research Design.
In this study, a cross-sectional study design with an exploratory and descriptive design were
used. Cross-sectional design is used when information is to be collected only once (Babbie,
1989; Mallhota et al, 1996).
Cross-sectional survey design is justified on the ground that we should adopt one time
observation, involving proximate and ultimate variables necessary for the study.
However, exploratory and descriptive designs focus on the phenomenon of interest, which
according to this study, is to find out whether there is a difference in the way senior
academics and junior academics perceive their organizational climate, and help in identifying
factors relating to organizational climate that may cause job dissatisfaction among
academics. According to Polit and Hungler (1991), exploratory research is concerned about
the phenomenon of interest and pursues the factors that influence affect, cause or relate to the
phenomenon. It is expected to help establish, whether senior academics and junior academics
experience the existing organizational climate differently.
3.3
The study population from which the sample was drawn for the study consists of eighteen
private universities in the southwest Nigeria. Out of these private universities, five were
taken as the study sample through judgmental sampling method and questionnaires were
administered to the academic staff ranging from the Professors, Associate Professors, Senior
lecturers, Lecturers 1, Lecturers 2, Assistant lecturers and Graduate Assistants. The total
65
number of academic staff in the selected private universities is 754 (Researchers Field
Survey Report, 2008).
The private universities chosen for this study are: (1) Covenant University: (2) Bells
University of Technology: (3) Crawford University: (4) Babcock University and (5) Bowen
University.
Covenant University is chosen for this study because it is the best sought after private
university in JAMB enrolment. The Bells University of Technology is chosen because it is
the only university operating in the southwest among its peers as University of Technology.
For Babcock, because it is the oldest in the southwest while for Crawford University, it is
new relatively to the first three mentioned and Bowen University because it secured 100%
success for the second time within five years in 2008 edition of the nationwide National
Universities Commission ( NUC ) accreditation exercise.
3.4
One of the most important tasks for the researcher is to select educational settings and
negotiating access to the participants or respondents (Steyn and Van Wyk, 1999).
The study is based on a sample frame of five private Universities drawn from the population
of private Universities in the Southwest Nigeria based on their ratings in the 2007 edition of
nationwide National Universities Commission (NUC) accreditation exercise. The five private
Universities are: Covenant University, Bells University of Technology, Babcock University,
Crawford University and Bowen University.
However, below is the statistical information regarding the selected university academic
staff as at October, 2008.
Total Population
Covenant University
417
56
Crawford University
46
Babcock University
146
Bowen University
89
Total
754
Daniel and Terrell (2006) advanced the formula below to determine the sample size for
estimating means, i.e. n= Z2 r2
d2
Z= level of confidence= 1.96(95%).
r= population of variability (variance) = (standard deviation)2
But r is always unknown and has to be estimated through: Pilot survey, similar studies and
through the formula V=R/6.
d= discrepancy i.e. the level of error to be tolerated between the true value and the
estimated value.
Variance= Range where Range= Highest - Lowest
6
6
= 417- 46 =
6
371
= 61.833333
APP: = 62.
d, is calculated using the formula;
r/ n = pilot survey.
38.44
3.5
Sampling Techniques.
Stratified random sampling technique was used for this study. Most studies conducted used
convenience sampling technique because not everybody would be around as such whoever is
around completes the questionnaire; but for this study, we used stratified random sampling
because of the nature of the population of study and the behavioural pattern of the profession
that they are more on ground than what obtains in the public universities. This work certified
Cooper and Schinder (2006), criteria for usage of stratified random method namely: (a)
increased samples statistical efficiency; (b) adequacy of data for analyzing the various sub
populations or strata; and the usage of different research methods and procedures for
67
different strata. In addition, the work ensured that stratified sampling was used in this study
to ensure that the universities with their different numbers of academic staff are well
represented.
Going by the information on the academic staff in these universities as shown in the Table
3.1 above, the following Table 3.2 was therefore designed on questionnaire administered to
respondents in the study Universities, rate of questionnaires returned and the total number
analyzed.
Name of
Universities
Copies of Questionnaire
Administered
1
2
Covenant University
The Bells University
of Technology
Crawford University
Babcock University
Bowen University
Total
3
4
5
Copies of Questionnaires
Returned
Copies
Analyzed
Total % of
No.
Analyzed
29.69
13.65
97
56
87
40
87
40
46
24
24
23.89
96
89
384
70
72
293
70
72
293
8.20
24.57
100
From Table 3.2 above, for Bells, Crawford and Bowen University, the total population serve
as the sample size, i.e. fifty-six copies of questionnaires were administered to Bells
University of Technology, fourty-six copies of questionnaires to Crawford and eighty-nine
copies of questionnaires to Bowen University. The justification for the use of the total
population as the sample size include the fact that total sample size for these three
Universities is relatively small, and the fact that the researcher wanted to avoid incidence of
low response rate from the respondents.
This is in line with Asika (2000) and Otokiti (2005) assertion that the best sample size is a
complete census of the population and that all the elements of the population are expected to
be included in the survey. This will make the sample statistics valid estimates of the
population parameters.
Moreover, the remaining two Universities, i.e. Covenant University and Babcock, ninetyseven and ninety-six copies of questionnaire were administered respectively being the
balance of one hundred and ninety- three from the total sample of three hundred and eighty
four after giving the other three Universities the numbers as indicated above being their
population equal to the sample size which amounted to one hundred and ninety one. The
distribution of the sample size over the remaining two Universities (i.e. Covenant University
68
and Babcock University) which are the remaining Universities were carried out using
Proportional Affixation Criterion (PAC), i.e. Universities sample in each stratum is
proportional to the relative weight of the stratum in relation to the population. Within each
University, selection is conducted through simple random sampling.
3.6
Sampling Frame
To achieve the objectives of the study, the sampling frame was drawn from the academics of
five selected functional private Universities in the Southwest, Nigeria.
In addition, sample was drawn on junior and senior academics of these Universities ranging
from the professors, to the Associate professors/ Reader, to the senior lecturers, lecturer I,
lecturer II, Assistant lecturers and Graduate Assistants. The sample frame was drawn from
the staff record departments of the Universities in the study. The questionnaires were
personally administered to the Universities under study.
69
3.8.
Division of Questionnaire
The questionnaire had three sections: A, B and C. Section A dealt with questions directed to
senior and junior academic staff covering major areas of this research with seventy-three
measuring questions. Section B contained four open ended questions about what the
respondents feel about their organizations personal career development, their work
environment, professional career development and their involvement in decision making.
Lastly, Section C dealt with the respondents bio-data information (i.e. the demographic and
biographical details of the academics including the years of experience, gender, highest
academic qualifications) with four measuring questions.
Five-point Likert scale was used in the design of the questionnaire. There was no established
number of categories that deemed optional for research scaling. In practice, scales of five
categories are typical ( Reichheld, 2003; Grigoroudis and Sikos, 2002).
Also, Lassitz and Greche(1975) in an investigation of the effects of scale points on reliability,
conclude that scale reliability increases with the number of intervals, five points or more
being more reliable than 4, 3 or 2 points.
For purification of scale, we used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in which the Nonfactor Index (NFI), Confirmatory Factor Index (CFI), Standardardized Root Mean Square
Error (SRME), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the degree of
70
freedom (df) were determined. This purification exercise revealed the degree of internal
consistency and overall homogeneity among the items comprising the scales. It also showed
the extent the model fits the data which depended on the loading of the items on the
hypothesized constructs.
3.9
Data collection is a process of identifying subjects and gathering data from these subjects
(Burns and Grove, 1997). Data was collected through a well-structured questionnaire.
Questionnaire according to Polit and Hungler (1991) is a method of gathering self report
information from respondents through administration of questions. Treece and Treece (1986)
submitted that questionnaire facilitates gathering of data from a widely scattered sample.
Asika (2000) defines a questionnaire as consisting a set of questions designed to gather
information or data for analysis, the result of which are used to answer the research questions
or used for the test of relevant hypotheses.
Survey research method was used for this study through the distribution of copies of
questionnaire to collect necessary information from respondents.
The researcher utilized one structured questionnaire for both the senior academics and junior
academics and was presented personally to all respondents by the researcher in the selected
private universities. Thus, this enhanced uniformity of response bearing in mind the degree
of variations in perception of what the organizational climate is. A structured questionnaire
gives respondents a number of alternative options from which they must choose the one that
most closely approximates the view of the respondents (Polit and Hungler, 1991). The value
of the study and the instructions were explained to the respondents. Respondents were
requested to complete the questionnaires which were collected personally by the researcher
from individual respondents which ensured a high return rate and encouraged freedom of
expression from the respondents.
71
3.10.1
Validity
variables to be measured. To do this effectively, a literature review was conducted and key
concepts identified and used in the formulation of questions, which were sent to the experts
(statisticians, my supervisor and co- supervisor) to evaluate the content and items against the
study.
Face validity or logical validity involves an analysis of whether the instrument appears to be
on a valid scale. By looking at the instrument, the investigators decided that it has face
validity. According to Treece and Treece (1986), face validity should be included in every
test for validity. In this study, face validity was done to check whether the instrument
contained the important items to be measured. Not only that, convergent validity describes
the extent to which each of the items concurrently measures the issue at stake.
3.10.1.1
Internal Validity
Internal validity is the extent to which the effects detected in the study are a true reflection of
reality other than being the result of the effects of extraneous variables. It addresses the
question Did the research design actually elicit the appropriate responses for which it was
designed? Threats to internal validity can be found in any study and these threats can lead to
a false positive or false negative conclusion. Threats to internal validity can include history
which pertains to events that are not related to the planned study; maturation -meaning the
subject being measured may become tired, bored, wiser, or may be influenced by incidental
learning or experiences; Instrumentation - unreliable test instruments may produce distorted
results; Experimental mortality- this is loss of subjects from the sample due to resignations,
death or apathy before completion; Statistical regression - subjects which score highest on a
pre-test may score lower on post-test, Placebo or Hawthorne effect - this is a bias in favour of
the experimental group because of the observed reaction to the unaccustomed intention they
received.
However, in this study none of these threats to internal validity is recorded. For example,
there are no histories which pertain to events that are not related to the planned study.
Moreover, none of the subjects measured became tired, bored or influenced by incidental
experiences during the study. The instruments used were tested for validity and found
reliable, meaning no distorted results.
73
Not only that, no experimental mortality was recorded as there was no loss of subjects from
the sample due to death or resignation before completion.
3.10.1.2
External Validity
External validity is concerned with the extent to which the study findings can be generalized
beyond the sample in the study (Burns and Bush, 1998). The researcher used the results
obtained from the samples used in the study to generalize the perceptions of academic staff to
those selected universities within the southwestern zone that took part in the study and to
other private universities in the south-west that did not partake in the study.
3.10.2 Reliability
Reliability is the extent to which measurement of the test are repeated. Thus, this implies that
measuring instrument results should be consistent when the instrument is repeated. A
researcher who designs a measuring instrument must ensure that the instrument gives similar,
close or the same results if the study to which the instrument is applied is replicated. In other
words, would the instrument give the same or similar result when different researcher under
the same assumptions and condition uses it? Asika (2000) defined reliability as the
consistency between independent measurements of the same phenomenon. Reliability is then
the stability, dependability and predictability of the measuring instrument. It is the accuracy
or precision of a measuring instrument. There are four ways a researcher can possibly test for
reliability (Asika, 2000). These are:
Test-re-test reliability, multiple (alternate) form, split half technique and Cronbachs alpha
test.
In test-re-test reliability, the same measuring instrument is used to take two separate
measurements on the same populations at different times. The higher the correlation between
the two measurements, the higher will be the reliability of the measuring instrument.
Multiple (alternate) forms reliability attempts to test for reliability through the use of the
same measuring instrument administered on different dimensions of the same variables. A
high association among the forms shows a high reliability of the instrument. Low association
between the forms shows that the forms are not equivalent and may indicate low reliability.
In split-half technique, the assumption is that the measurement items can be randomly
74
assigned to two equal parts. That is, the measurement items can be randomly split into half
and each half is now treated as an alternative form of the same measurement.
The Cronbachs alpha test proceeds by associating each measurement item with every other
measurement item and obtaining the average inter-correlation for all the paired associations.
However, in this study, a set of questions were used to measure the organizational climate in
the selected private universities in the south-western zone of Nigeria, thus the test-re-test
method was adopted and the Cronbach alpha reliability co-efficient was measured. The
method is easy and simple to apply because the respondents and the measuring instrument
are the same. Copies of the questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and the
process repeated after sometime.
x
n
For hypothesis one, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients which measures the
degree of relationships between the variables was used to measure this relationship. For
Hypotheses 2-4, Multiple Regression which measures nature of relationship and
contributions of variables to a system of equation were used to analyse these hypotheses. For
hypothesis 5, ANOVA, which measures variations among variables, was used with
independent t-test to ascertain the degree of significance of the measured variation among
senior and junior academic in this study. When two mean scores are compared, the t test is
used. An independent t -test measures the difference between two independent, unrelated
75
groups. The mean scores of senior and academic staff were compared by means of an
independent ttest.
Symbolically, t =
x x
s x1 x 2
1
x x
N 1S N 1S 1 1
N N 2
N N
1
Also the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the mean scores of the two
groups (group A and group B) differ. If a significant result is found between groups, it will
not tell us between which groups the difference exists. For this purpose, a post hoc analysis
was carried out to compare the mean.
The universities were compared with regards to their views on organizational climate by
means of an ANOVA test. However, the ANOVA procedure is based on the mathematical
theory that the independent sample data can be made to yield two independent estimates of
the population variance, namely;
(i).
Within group variance estimate deals with how different each of the values in a given
sample is from other values in the same group.
(ii).
Between group variance estimate deals with how different the means of the various
samples (or groups) are from each other .
The responses from the questionnaire administered were presented in form of tables, charts
and figures as appropriate.
76
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS PRESENTATION, ANALYSES, AND INTERPRETATIONS
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the results of the empirical research findings. The
main aim of the research was to investigate Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction
among Academic Staff in some Selected Private Universities within the South West Zone of
Nigeria. Five Private Universities (for ethical purposes in chapters four and five, we denote
the Universities with the alphabets A,B,C,D and E) were visited and all of them co-operated.
In all, 384 copies of questionnaires were administered to these private Universities, but a
total of 293 questionnaires were returned fully and appropriately filled.
This represents a response rate of 76.30%. An analysis of the questionnaires by total
responses showed that Covenant University has the highest response rate of 87 (29.69%);
Bowen University has 72 (24.57%); Babcock University has 70 (23.89%); Bell University
has 40 (13.65%) and Crawford has 24 (8.20%). Therefore the whole 293 questionnaires
retrieved were used in the analysis of this study.
77
2
6
1
0
6
10
5
2
10
4
13
1
Grad Asst.
3
1
40
24
13
14
15
12
70
D
Total
6
11
28
5
5
17
0
12
41
13
10
44
21
18
68
19
11
56
8
20
39
72
87
293
Percentage
9.6
5.8
14.0
15.0
23.2
19.1
13.3
100
Name of
univ
sampled
Reader
Snr Lec
Lec I
Total
Lec II
A/L
However, as seen from the Table 4.1, the Associate Professor / Reader have a very small
representation (5.8%) in the sample. A possible reason for the low response rate of Associate
Professor / Reader is that the senior academics are not top heavy, that is, they are always
smaller in number when compared with junior academics.
Frequency
45
70
53
56
47
16
5
293
Percent
15.4
23.9
18.1
19.1
16.0
5.5
1.7
100.0
Valid Percent
15.4
23.9
18.1
19.1
16.0
5.5
1.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
15.4
39.2
57.3
76.5
92.5
98.0
99.7
4.2.3:
male
Female
B
31
9
40
C
21
3
24
Total
D
53
17
70
E
58
14
72
46
41
87
Bells
209
84
293
academics in general. The aim of including gender of respondents was to establish whether
there is a difference in the way female academics and male academics perceive the
organizational climate.
Table 4.3b: Gender. * Code of Universities sampled Cross tabulation
Code of univ sampled
Gender.
male
Count
% within Gender.
% within Name of
univ sampled
% of Total
Female
Total
Count
% within Gender.
% within Name of
univ sampled
Total
31
14.8%
21
10.0%
53
25.4%
58
27.8%
46
22.0%
209
100.0%
77.5%
87.5%
75.7%
80.6%
52.9%
71.3%
10.6%
9
10.7%
7.2%
3
3.6%
18.1%
17
20.2%
19.8%
14
16.7%
15.7%
41
48.8%
71.3%
84
100.0%
22.5%
12.5%
24.3%
19.4%
47.1%
28.7%
% of Total
Count
% within Gender.
3.1%
40
1.0%
24
5.8%
70
4.8%
72
14.0%
87
28.7%
293
13.7%
8.2%
23.9%
24.6%
29.7%
100.0%
% within Name of
univ sampled
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
13.7%
8.2%
23.9%
24.6%
29.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Total
Total
D
1-4years
11
14
11
26
64
5-8years
9-12years
13-16 yrs
17-20yrs
21 yrs and over
21
6
0
1
1
40
9
7
0
4
2
24
37
10
1
4
4
70
45
7
2
1
6
72
32
15
0
4
10
87
144
45
3
14
23
293
81
1-4years
5-8years
13-16 yrs
% within years of
exp in group
Count
Count
% within years of
exp in group
Count
% within years of
exp in group
17-20yrs
Count
% within years of
exp in group
Total
Count
% within years of
exp in group
9-12years
Total
Count
% within years of
exp in group
Count
% within years of
exp in group
11
14
11
26
64
17.2%
3.1%
21.9%
17.2%
40.6%
100.0%
21
37
45
32
144
14.6%
6.3%
25.7%
31.3%
22.2%
100.0%
10
15
45
13.3%
15.6%
22.2%
15.6%
33.3%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
.0%
100.0%
14
7.1%
28.6%
28.6%
7.1%
28.6%
100.0%
10
23
4.3%
8.7%
17.4%
26.1%
43.5%
100.0%
40
24
70
72
87
293
13.7%
8.2%
23.9%
24.6%
29.7%
100.0%
4.2.5: Age
A large number of respondents are within the age bracket of between 2640 and that
represents 38.2% of the total sample (i.e. 112 respondents) followed by 111 respondents of
age brackets between 4160 which represents 37.9% of the total sample. 43 of the
respondents are within the age bracket 1925 representing 14.7% of the total sample. Only
twenty-seven respondents are up to 61 years and above meaning that majority of the sampled
respondents are young academics of within the age bracket 26-60.
82
19-25
26-40
41-60
61 and over
Total
B
4
25
9
Total
D
1
7
9
6
23
33
6
31
28
26
26
32
43
112
111
27
40
24
70
72
87
293
19-25
Count
26
43
9.3%
2.3%
14.0%
14.0%
60.5%
100.0%
10.0%
4.2%
8.6%
8.3%
29.9%
14.7%
1.4%
.3%
2.0%
2.0%
8.9%
14.7%
25
23
31
26
112
22.3%
6.3%
20.5%
27.7%
23.2%
100.0%
62.5%
29.2%
32.9%
43.1%
29.9%
38.2%
8.5%
2.4%
7.8%
10.6%
8.9%
38.2%
33
28
32
111
8.1%
8.1%
29.7%
25.2%
28.8%
100.0%
22.5%
37.5%
47.1%
38.9%
36.8%
37.9%
3.1%
3.1%
11.3%
9.6%
10.9%
37.9%
27
7.4%
25.9%
29.6%
25.9%
11.1%
100.0%
5.0%
29.2%
11.4%
9.7%
3.4%
9.2%
.7%
2.4%
2.7%
2.4%
1.0%
9.2%
40
24
70
72
87
293
13.7%
8.2%
23.9%
24.6%
29.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
13.7%
8.2%
23.9%
24.6%
29.7%
100.0%
Count
% of Total
Count
% within Recoded age of
lecturers
% within Name of univ
sampled
% of Total
Count
% of Total
Total
% of Total
61 and
over
41-60
26-40
Total
Count
% within Recoded age of
lecturers
% within Name of univ
sampled
% of Total
2.
3.
4.
5.
Variables
Management
and Leadership
1
Management and leadership style in my University does not support lecturing profession.
Management. and leadership style is sensitive and supportive of lecturers work schedule.
Management style does not allow for academic input in the decision making process.
Management style encourages junior academic career path and growth.
Senior academics do not provide feedback on employees evaluation and performance.
I am generally satisfied with the leadership style in my organization
I will like my Head of Department to change his or her leadership style.
Participation in Decision-making
Senior academics schedule work for all categories of lecturers.
Junior academics participate in decision making.
My participation in decision making enhance my ability to perform.
I never question rules set by the senior colleagues.
I am allowed autonomy in discharging my duties.
My abilities are taken into consideration when delegating.
I am involved when the University policies are reviewed.
Challenging Job
I believe that the University sets high standard of performance.
Delegated responsibilities are challenging to me.
Delegated responsibilities allowed me to overcome limitation in my experience.
I find delegated responsibilities interesting.
My job is challenging.
Boredom and Frustration
Lecturers are given sufficient instruction on how to go about their work.
Senior academics schedule work for all categories of lecturers.
My work does not allow for use of my own discretion.
Fringe Benefits
I am satisfied with the benefits that I receive at the University.
The benefits I receive are adequate to fulfill my basic needs.
My benefits equal my contributions to the University goals.
The benefits in my University are equal with the external labour market.
84
Range of Standard
Factor Loading
0.30-0.78
0.72
0.65
0.68
0.68
0.78
0.30
0.75
0.43-0.77
0.52
0.72
0.67
0.43
0.74
0.77
0.67
0.80-0.92
0.80
0.83
0.92
0.86
0.83
0.38-0.83
0.83
0.81
0.38
0.76-0.92
0.85
0.92
0.76
0.80
Cronbach
.892
.896
.892
.899
.892
.897
.888
.897
.893
.894
.891
.892
.894
.889
.889
.889
.890
.892
.892
.893
.893
.893
.894
.892
.897
.891
.890
.891
.891
.892
.890
NNFI
0.93
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.95
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.92
CFI
.95
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.93
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.96
0.94
0.96
0.96
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.96
0.96
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.96
0.94
SRMR
RMSEA
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.10
432.86
224.18
255.07
94.41
257.49
79.46
114.628
124.65
342.78
178.87
138.78
299.43
120.97
115.43
115.36
150.70
510.38
382.31
269.32
358.92
386.13
296.35
261.17
95.39
324.96
115.72
236.63
173.10
213.24
324.96
189.16
Sn.
Variables
6.
Personnel Policies
Lecturers work together when doing routine duties.
My work is evaluated according to the organizations set standards.
I am informed about any new or revised policies.
I believe my departmental policies facilitate the achievement of my goals.
My University sponsor local and overseas training.
Working Condition
My department provides sufficient material for our use.
Supplies are available when needed.
Lecturers co-operate well with each other in the University.
I am facilitated to overcome limitations in my experience.
My senior colleagues create a challenging environment for me.
The University provides the equipment and resources necessary for me to execute my
responsibilities.
My work place is a noise-free environment.
I feel that my work place is a safe environment.
Suitable Career Ladder
Senior academics share useful information with junior academics.
Senior academics ensure high performance among the junior academics.
Senior academics provide me with opportunities to overcome any limitations in
knowledge.
I believe that I have opportunity for career advancement.
Career paths are well defined.
Appropriate Admin Style
We spend too much time at meetings.
Time spent at meetings keep me from doing my best on the job.
I benefit a lot from meetings.
If I have my way, I will avoid going for the meetings.
Support from Supervisors
Senior academics help to solve personal problems of their junior colleagues.
Senior academics sometimes do personal favour for junior academics.
Senior academics encourage their subordinates to take initiatives in solving problems.
Senior academics are willing to listen to job related problems.
7.
8.
9.
10.
85
Range of
Standardadised
Factor Loading
0.43-0.92
0.68
0.43
0.87
0.92
0.83
0.32-0.97
0.96
0.86
0.90
0.97
0.90
0.92
Cronbach
NNFI
CFI
SRMR
RMSEA
.889
.891
.890
.889
.888
.888
.889
.889
.890
.889
.889
.889
.888
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.92
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.09
286.43
203.55
396.13
111.86
110.50
121.14
226.62
138.85
194.67
163.46
129.13
126.01
86.02
0.37
0.32
0.86-0.99
0.97
0.99
0.98
.892
.892
.889
.888
.888
.889
0.94
0.91
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
351.28
311.42
255.48
132.92
108.24
111.25
0.90
0.86
0.35-0.91
0.85
0.91
0.35
0.84
0.80-0.97
0.86
0.94
0.97
0.80
.890
.890
.893
.893
.897
.890
.897
.888
.889
.888
.888
.889
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.93
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.99
0.96
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.96
0.97
0.99
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
237.72
173.21
299.28
173.21
80.74
77.33
79.67
194.96
141.41
136.63
129.23
130.36
Sn.
Variables
Range of
Standardised
Factor Loading
0.34-0.91
0.91
0.90
0.81
0.34
0.71-0.96
0.87
.071
0.96
0.67-0.99
0.97
0.91
0.67
0.72
0.96
0.99
0.52-0.92
0.92
0.91
0.52
0.32-0.92
0.79
Cronbach
NNFI
CFI
SRMR
RMSEA
.892
.896
.895
.893
.888
.889
.888
.892
.889
.889
.889
.888
.892
.892
.890
.888
.890
.889
.890
.895
.889
.890
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.94
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.99
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.94
0.96
0.99
0.96
0.93
0.96
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.11
436.12
86.69
85.24
244.68
155.67
237.69
123.75
237.93
95.97
218.73
170.09
135.26
498.58
469.40
217.72
99.30
278.80
63.57
111.04
61.32
119.4
154.16
0.85
0.92
0.92
0.32
.889
.887
.888
.893
0.92
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11
114.49
105.89
141.459
61.41
86
Figure 4.1: MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB SATISFACTION VARIABLES
q1
.72
q2
.65
q3
.68
q4
.68
q5
.78
Challenging jobs
Boredom &
Frustration
q6
.30
q7
.75
Q8
.52
Q9
.72
q10
.67
q11
.43
q12
.74
q13
.77
q14
.67
q15
.80
q16
.83
q17
.92
q18
.86
q19
.83
q13
.72
q14
.72
Fringe
Benefits
q23
.85
q24
.92
q20
.83
Personnel policies
q27
.68
q28
.43
q29
.87
q30
.92
Working conditions
q31
.83
q13
.72
q14
.72
q32
.96
q33
.86
q34
.90
q35
.97
q37
.92
q38
.37
q40
.97
q41
.99
q42
.98
q21
.81
q43
.90
q44
.86
q13
.72
q22
.38
q14
.72
q25
.76
q26
.80
Feedback
about perf.
q46
.91
q47
.35
q48
.72
q12
.72
Support
superior Field Survey )
Source:from
Researchers
q13
.72
q14
.72
q49
.86
q50
.94
q51
.97
q52
.80
q12
.72
q13
.72
q14
.72
Work load
q53
.91
q54
.90
q55
.81
q56
.34
q12
.72
q13
.72
q14
.72
q57
.87
q58
.71
q60
.96
Salary package
q62
.91
q61
.67
q62
.72
q63
.96
q64
.99
q14
.72
q65
.92
q66
.91
q67
.52
Promotional opportunities
q11
.72
q12
.72
q13
.72
q14
.72
87
q68
.79
q69
.85
q70
.92
q71
.92
q72
.32
q13
.72
q14
.72
The range of standardised factor loading is considerably high for all variables, the lowest
being 0.30- I am generally satisfied with the leadership style in my organization a variable
in management and leadership style. Apart from this, all other variables have factor loading
above 0.30. For example, the range of standardized factor loading for each of the major
variables are management and leadership style (0.30-0.78), participation in decision making
(0.43-0.77), challenging job (0.80-0.92), boredom and frustration (0.38-0.83), fringe benefits
(0.76-0.92), personnel policies (0.43-0.92), working condition (0.32-0.97), suitable career
ladder (0.86-0.99), Appropriate Administrative Style (0.35-0.91), Support from supervisors
(0.80-0.97) Work load (0.34-0.91), feedback about performance (0.71-0.96), Clear lines of
communication (0.67-0.99), Realistic salary package (0.52-0.92) and finally, Promotional
opportunities (0.32-0.92).
Most of the variables are within the acceptable range of 0.4 for applied research. The range is
highest in career ladder with 0.86-0.99. Generally, there is internal consistency and overall
homogeneity among items comprising the scales.
The reliability test using the Cronbach alpha shows a high value of between 0.80-0.90,
indicating that the research instrument is reliable, that is, it has consistently measured what it
is supposed to measure.
The structural equation model result using AMOS 18.0 with NNFI ranging from 0.90-0.96,
CFI,= 0.92-0.99), SRMR= (0.04-0.09) and RMSEA= (0.7-0.11) shows that the model fits the
data rather well with chi-square ranging from (61.32-510.38) significant at 0.05 level of
significance.
88
The means score of those that emphasize that management and leadership style in their
Universities do not support lecturing profession is 2.40 on 5-point scale, while the standard
deviation is 1.233. This means that in the average, respondents do not agree with the fact that
management and leadership style in their Universities do not support lecturing profession.
Secondly, the mean score of those respondents that are of the opinion that management and
leadership style is sensitive and supportive of lecturers work schedule is 3.73 and standard
deviation is 1.097. This implies that in the average, respondents supported the fact that
management and leadership style in their Universities is sensitive and supportive of the
lecturers work schedule.
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Management and Leadership Style
N
Statistic
Mean
Statistic
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
293
2.40
1.233
.912
.142
-.316
.284
293
3.73
1.097
-.952
.142
.016
.284
290
3.05
1.370
-.078
.143
-1.424
.285
293
3.77
1.078
-1.078
.142
.466
.284
289
3.07
1.350
-.084
.143
-1.378
.286
293
2.61
1.324
.510
.142
-1.061
.284
Skewness
Statistic Std. Error
Kurtosis
Statistic Std. Error
286
89
Furthermore, the mean score for the fourth statement on Table 4.7 above shows 3.77 with the
standard deviation of 1.078. Thus, on the average on a 5-point scale, this means that the
respondents support the statement.
Likewise, on the statement about whether senior academics provide feedback on employees
evaluation and performance, the mean score is 3.07 with the standard deviation of 1.350. It
implies that the average on a 5-point scale, the respondents agree with the fact that senior
academics do not provide feedback on employees evaluation and performance.
For the last statement on the table about whether the respondents are generally satisfied with
the leadership style in their organization, the respondents agree on the mean score of 2.61
with the standard deviation of 1.324. In other words, that on the average on a 5-point scale on
the mean score of 2.61, the respondents are generally satisfied with the leadership style in
their organization.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
287
3.57
1.153
-.766
.144
-.398
.287
292
2.58
1.256
.480
.143
-1.041
.284
291
3.87
1.029
-1.304
.143
1.324
.285
293
3.34
1.263
-.326
.142
-1.204
.284
291
2.96
1.322
.016
.143
-1.397
.285
292
3.18
1.377
-.368
.143
-1.294
.284
292
2.18
1.342
.792
.143
-.806
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
283
disagree with the fact that they are involved when the University policies are been reviewed.
For the other constructs, the respondents agree, for instance that senior academics schedule
works for all categories of lecturers at mean value of 3.57. At mean score of 3.34 and 2.96
respectively, the respondents agree that they never question rules set by the senior colleagues
and that they are allowed autonomy in discharging their duties. Not only that, the respondents
agree that their abilities are taken into consideration when delegating at mean score of 3.18
and that their participation in decision making enhance their ability to perform at a high mean
score of 3.87. These indicate that the level of respondents participation in decision making is
high and this enhances their ability to perform.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
4.09
.861
-1.702
.143
3.990
.284
291
3.85
1.060
-1.278
.143
1.187
.285
293
4.05
.867
-1.491
.142
2.959
.284
293
4.11
.799
-1.456
.142
3.299
.284
292
289
4.07
.928
-1.358
.143
1.882
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
A critical review of the mean column in Table 4.9 shows that no variable has a mean score of
less than 2.5 on a 5-point scale. This indicates that respondents agree or strongly agree with
all the variables regarding delegated responsibilities and challenging job.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
2.90
1.355
.048
.143
-1.416
.284
289
2.56
1.335
.546
.143
-1.039
.286
Skewness
Kurtosis
288
Mean
Std. Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Skewness
Std. Error
Statistic
Kurtosis
Std. Error
291
2.04
1.155
1.090
.143
.247
.285
292
1.96
1.172
1.216
.143
.425
.284
293
1.68
.827
1.602
.142
3.130
.284
292
1.99
1.196
1.083
.143
.020
.284
290
the satisfaction with benefits they receive at their University is 2.04; the mean score for the
adequacy of the benefits in fulfilling their basic needs is 1.96; the mean score for the equality
of the benefits to their contributions to the University goals is 1.68 and the mean score for the
equality of their University benefits to the external labour market is 1.99. These indicate no
variable has a mean score of up to 2.5 on a 5-point scale, meaning; (1) they are not satisfied
with benefits they receive at the University; (2) the benefits they receive are not adequate to
fulfill their basic needs; (3) the benefits they receive are not equal with their contributions to
the University goal and; (4) the benefits in their University are not equal with the external
labour market.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
290
3.40
1.176
-.716
.143
-.612
.285
291
4.06
.785
-1.399
.143
3.262
.285
290
3.03
1.326
-.096
.143
-1.387
.285
292
3.00
1.341
-.089
.143
-1.408
.284
291
2.79
1.349
.313
.143
-1.309
.285
Skewness
Kurtosis
283
93
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
2.60
1.295
.508
.143
-1.056
.284
292
2.39
1.139
.699
.143
-.579
.284
293
3.33
1.291
-.543
.142
-1.025
.284
292
3.26
1.284
-.451
.143
-1.091
.284
292
3.13
1.310
-.298
.143
-1.283
.284
291
2.80
1.372
.156
.143
-1.404
.285
293
3.95
.989
-1.553
.142
2.398
.284
293
287
3.96
.975
-1.392
.142
1.884
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
289
2.85
1.273
.272
.143
-1.262
.286
293
3.05
1.310
-.019
.142
-1.375
.284
292
2.91
1.330
.096
.143
-1.390
.284
292
3.57
1.184
-.891
.143
-.278
.284
Valid N (listwise)
287
Skewness
Kurtosis
academics share useful information with junior academics. The mean score for senior
academics ensuring high performance among the junior academics is 3.05. The respondents
believe that senior academics provide them with opportunities to overcome any limitations in
knowledge at mean value of 2.91 and they believe they have opportunity for career
advancement at a mean score of 3.57 with standard deviation of 1.184.
Table 4.15: Descriptive Statistics on Administrative Style
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
291
Statistic
3.86
Statistic
1.316
Statistic
-1.133
Std. Error
.143
Statistic
.057
Std. Error
.285
292
3.40
1.397
-.446
.143
-1.216
.284
291
2.84
1.347
.295
.143
-1.263
.285
292
3.36
1.389
-.377
.143
-1.274
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
289
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
290
2.58
1.271
.542
.143
-.975
.285
291
2.69
1.303
.335
.143
-1.263
.285
292
2.86
1.304
.078
.143
-1.394
.284
292
2.99
1.341
-.041
.143
-1.435
.284
287
Skewness
Kurtosis
The above Table 4.16 signifies that the respondents enjoy support from their senior
colleagues because all their responses are above 2.50 on a 5-point scale though all the mean
values are low as they are all a little above 2.50. None of them is up to 3.00 as shown in the
table. For example, they agree that the senior academics help to solve personal problems of
their junior colleagues at mean values of 2.58; that senior academic sometimes do personal
favour for junior academics at a mean value of 2.69; that senior academics encourage their
subordinates to take initiatives in solving problems at a mean score of 2.86 and that senior
academics are willing to listen to job related problems at a mean value of 2.99 which is a bit
higher than the other mean value, yet not up to 3.00.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
3.08
1.423
-.111
.143
-1.472
.284
293
3.00
1.402
.038
.142
-1.459
.284
289
3.66
1.122
-.934
.143
-.052
.286
292
2.99
1.298
.045
.143
-1.414
.284
287
96
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
291
3.06
1.278
-.120
.143
-1.337
.285
I am promoted based on my
performance.
290
3.73
1.055
-1.005
.143
.388
.285
292
3.20
1.292
-.253
.143
-1.244
.284
Valid N (listwise)
289
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
3.37
1.321
-.582
.143
-1.021
.284
292
3.38
1.348
-.456
.143
-1.193
.284
293
4.13
.675
-1.507
.142
5.490
.284
293
4.17
.698
-1.470
.142
4.549
.284
292
3.74
1.137
-.930
.143
-.088
.284
292
3.11
1.332
-.123
.143
-1.370
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
289
Mean
Std. Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
293
2.53
1.320
.403
.142
-1.155
.284
292
2.28
1.291
.806
.143
-.558
.284
292
3.49
1.283
-.520
.143
-.897
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error
291
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
292
3.37
1.249
0-.487
0.143
-1.029
.284
293
2.73
1.279
0.308
0.142
-1.214
.284
293
2.97
1.328
0-.058
0.142
-1.394
.284
293
2.95
1.331
0.044
0.142
-1.373
.284
292
1.47
.520
0.359
0.143
-1.365
.284
Skewness
Kurtosis
291
98
criteria are well defined. They disagreed that they are in a dead end job at a very low value of
1.47.
X (N=293)
STANDARD DEVIATION
3.1233
.52463
Decision Making
3.0958
.56595
Challenge Job
4.0305
.58745
Boredom
2.7321
.84545
Fringe Benefit
2.2123
.71612
Personnel Policy
3.0915
.87342
Work Condition
3.2106
.72491
Career
3.3899
.79200
Administrative style
3.0420
.59812
Supervisor support
2.9061
.76827
Work load
3.3578
.75359
Feedback
3.4278
.96268
Communication
3.5097
.74916
Salary Package
3.0478
.72293
Promotional Opportunities
2.5307
.83630
Age
2.4232
.86706
Present Experience
3.2594
1.87109
General Experience
8.3208
6.41377
Rank
4.4710
1.79326
The results in table 4.22 above showed that the subjects had the highest means score in
organizational climate variables such as experience in the university generally, followed by
rank in the university, line of communication and feedback about performance. They had the
least mean scores in job satisfaction variables such as fringe benefits, boredom and
frustration and personnel policy.
However, the mean scores in the 19 variables were obtained for (academics in five selected
private universities, gender and rank) groups to ascertain the normative scores for the
measuring instruments.
Table 4.23: Correlation Analysis of Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction
Organclimate
Organclimate
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sum of Squares and Cross-products
Covariance
N
Jobsatis
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sum of Squares and Cross-products
Covariance
N
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1
40.268
0.138
293
0.671(**)
.000
35.118
0.120
293
Jobsatis
0.671(**)
.000
35.118
0.120
293
1
68.098
0.233
293
100
Objective 2: To identify factors that determines job satisfaction of academics and their
consequential effects on academic excellence.
Research Question 2: What are the factors that determine job satisfaction of academics and
their impact on academic excellence?
Hypothesis 2: Factors like clear lines of communication, realistic salary package and
promotional opportunities would not significantly contribute to job satisfaction.
Sig
0.000
0.000
0.000
R2
0.825
2
Adjusted R
0.823
F
453.524
Std Error of the estimate
0.20318
Sig of F
0.000
* Significant at 1% lever or beta
Dependent Variable: JOBSATIS.
Source: Researchers Field Survey Result (2009)
The F statistic which tests the overall significance of the model has the value of 453.524 with
(3,289) degrees of freedom. The significance of F is 0.000 and as such the null hypothesis
can be rejected at 1% level. That is, job satisfaction is influenced by those variables i.e. clear
lines of communication, realistic salary package and promotional opportunities and the f
value standing at 453.524.
The corresponding t- statistic for each of these factors include; 13.122 (for clear lines of
communication), 10.401 (for realistic salary package) and 14.015 (for promotional
opportunities), which has a significant level of 0.000. Thus, the finding supported the fact
that factors like clear lines of communication, realistic salary package and promotional
opportunities contribute to job satisfaction.
101
The R-squared (R2) for the regression is 0.825 and the R-square adjusted for degrees of
freedom
for the regression is 0.823. The root mean square error is .20318. It should be
noted that the root mean square error is the square root of the mean square error reported for
the residual (in the ANOVA table).
The statistics presented in Table 4.24 above under R square is called the coefficient of
determination and referred to as R2. In this study, 82.5% of the variability in job satisfaction
can be explained by factors like clear lines of communication, realistic salary package and
promotional opportunities. The remaining 17.5% of variability is due to other unexplained
factors. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis that factors
like clear lines of communication, realistic salary package and promotional opportunities
would significantly contribute to job satisfaction (82.5%).
Table 4.25: Descriptive Statistics of Job Satisfaction, Clear Lines of Communication, Salary
Pack and Promotional Opportunity
JOBSATIS
COMMUNICATN
SALARYPACK
PROMOOPP
Mean
3.1094
3.6503
2.7651
2.6964
Std.
Deviation
.48292
.78651
.76989
.82083
N
293
293
293
293
0.798
0.796
378.886
0.21826
0.000
Table 4.27: Descriptive Statistics of Organisational Climate, Boredom, Personnel Policy and
Decision Making
ORGANCLIMATE
BOREDOM
PERSPOLICY
WORKCOND
DECISIONMAKE
Mean
3.0507
2.7321
3.2510
3.0667
3.0958
Std. Deviation
.37135
.84545
.78098
.81984
.56595
N
293
293
293
293
293
104
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
.763**
**
.498
.003
**
.514
**
.575
.549**
.535**
.295**
.640**
.098
.051
.336**
-.370**
1
**
.636
.114
**
.531
**
.622
.667**
.672**
.281**
.658**
*
.148
.059
.338**
-.372**
1
.097
**
.517
**
.426
.510**
.616**
.197**
.614**
*
.133
**
.157
.316**
-.338**
1
.101
.022
.151**
.124*
.174**
.169**
.055
.020
.027
.002
1
**
.523
.397**
.499**
.321**
.512**
*
.128
.091
.418**
-.412**
1
.686**
.504**
.148*
.533**
.103
.095
.290**
-.298**
1
.627**
.173**
.612**
**
.180
.031
.285**
-.356**
1
.295**
.609**
*
.132
.080
.294**
-.334**
1
.377**
*
-.129
.008
.160**
-.169**
1
**
.219
.109
.422**
-.485**
1
.181**
.416**
-.554**
1
.304**
-.335**
1
-.856**
105
19
A correlation analysis was conducted on all variables in order to check for multicollinearity
and to find the level of relationship between variables multicollinearity is shown when intercorrelation between explanatory variables exceed 0.8. Our interpretation of the relationships
between the variables will follow Roundtree (1987) guidelines. Roundtree classification of
correlation co-efficient (r) is as follows:
0.00 to 0.02 weak and low
0.02 to 0.04 moderate
0.04 to 0.07 strong and high
0.07 to 0.09 very strong and very high
Organizational climate and job satisfaction variables were subjected to correlational analysis
to determine relationships that exist if any among the variables (see table 4.28). Academics
believe that (a) challenging job is positively related with rank in the university (r = 0.90); (b)
personal policy is positively related to age (r=0.098); (c) workload is positively related to
years of experience in the current university (r=0.095) and (d) line of communication is
positively related to years of experience in the current university (r=0.080).
This shows that job satisfaction variables: personnel policy, work condition and challenging
job are positively related to organizational climate variables: line of communication,
supervisor support etc. This means that job satisfaction is positively related to organizational
climate. The degree of the relationships was determined with the hypotheses testing.
106
Sig
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.857
0.855
430.768
0.14150
0.000
unexplained factors. This supports the further retention of the alternate hypothesis and the
rejection of the null hypothesis.
Objective 5: To determine whether there is a difference in the way senior academics and
junior academics perceive the existing organizational climate.
Research Question 5: Would there be any difference in the way senior academics and junior
academics perceive organizational climate that could negatively impact on them?
Hypothesis 5: There would be no positive difference in the way senior academics and junior
academics perceive organizational climate.
For Hypothesis 5 on whether there would be no difference in the way senior academics and
junior academics perceive their organizational climate, paired-samples t-test was used to
carry out the test on this hypothesis. This was done for each school - that is the responses for
junior and senior academics in each of the five schools were tested to see their perceptions on
how they see their organizational climate using the eight variables on organizational climate,
which are; Management and Leadership style, Participation in decision making, Challenging
job, Boredom and frustration, Fringe benefits, Personnel policies, Working conditions and
Career ladder. Thereafter, the overall perceptions of the academics in each of these five
schools were correlated to view their responses on their organizational climate.
For University D, Table 4.30 below describes the responses of the junior and senior
academics on the eight organizational climate variables.
Table 4.30: Paired Samples Test of Perception of University D Staff (Junior and Senior) on
Organisational Climate
Paired Differences
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
mgtboj - mgtbos
decboj - decbos
challboj - challbos
boreboj - borebos
fringboj - fringbos
perspboj - persbos
wkconboj - wkconbos
careerboj - csreerbos
Mean
Lower
6.80000
-1.10000
3.20000
-1.10000
-1.03333
1.40000
7.20000
-4.60000
Std.
Deviation
Upper
6.01378
6.05350
4.88064
4.50555
5.39146
7.34190
8.00172
8.51611
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
1.09796
1.10521
.89108
.82260
.98434
1.34044
1.46091
1.55482
T
Mean
Upper
6.193
-.995
3.591
-1.337
-1.050
1.044
4.928
-2.959
Df
Std.
Dev.
Lower
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Error
Mean
Upper
.000
.328
.001
.192
.302
.305
.000
.006
rounded up to three decimal places it means that the actual probability value was less than
.005. This value is substantially smaller than our specified alpha value of .05. Therefore, we
can conclude that there is a significant difference in the way junior and senior academics in
University D perceive their organizational climate. In other words using the construct under
this variable of whether management and leadership style in the University does not support
lecturing profession, whether management and leadership style is not sensitive and
supportive of lecturers work schedule, whether management styles
academic input in the decision making process, whether management styles would not
enhance junior academics career path and growth, whether senior academics would not
provide feedback on employees evaluation and performance and whether they would not be
generally satisfied with the leadership style in the organization or whether they would not
like their heads of department to change their leadership style are all significant to both the
junior and senior academics. Likewise for the constructs on challenging jobs, there is a
significant difference in the way junior and senior academics in this school view them. At
0.01, there is a significant difference in the way junior and senior academics believe that the
University set high standard of performance, see whether their jobs are challenging, view
delegated responsibilities as challenging, interesting or allow them to overcome limitation in
their experience. Again, at 0.000 for working condition, there is a significant difference in the
way junior and senior respond to the propositions that the department provides sufficient
materials for use, and supplies are always available when needed; that senior colleagues
create a challenging environment, that they are facilitated to overcome limitations in their
experience, that the University provides the equipment and resources necessary for them to
execute their responsibilities, and that the work place is a noise free and safe environment.
109
Table 4.31: Descriptive Paired Sample Statistics of University D Staff (Junior and Senior)
Perception of Organisational Climate.
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
Mgtboj
Mgtbos
Decboj
Decbos
Challboj
Challbos
Boreboj
Borebos
Fringboj
Fringbos
Perspboj
Persbos
Wkconboj
Wkconbos
Careerboj
csreerbos
Mean
23.1333
16.3333
21.4000
22.5000
19.4333
16.2333
6.2667
7.3667
10.8667
11.9000
14.4333
13.0333
24.5333
17.3333
14.1000
18.7000
N
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Std.
Deviation
2.37419
5.58528
2.93140
4.97407
3.20219
3.97131
2.46259
3.13471
3.62685
3.33580
4.60647
4.35877
3.80320
8.39677
4.30196
5.01824
Std. Error
Mean
.43347
1.01973
.53520
.90814
.58464
.72506
.44961
.57232
.66217
.60903
.84102
.79580
.69437
1.53303
.78543
.91620
junior
academics
(Mean=23.1333,
SD=2.37419)
and
senior
academics
For University C, Table 4.32 below describes the responses of the junior and senior
academics on the eight organizational climate variables.
In comparing the responses of the junior and senior academics in University C, none of the
probability values (the value on the final column labeled Sig. (2-tailed) is less than .005.
These values are higher than our specified alpha value of .05. Therefore, we can conclude
that there is no significant difference in the way junior and senior academics in University C
experience their organizational climate.
Table 4.32: Paired Samples Test of University C Staff (Junior and Senior) Perception on
Organisational Climate
Paired Differences
T
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
MGTbj - MGTbs
DECbj - DECbs
CHALbj - CHALLbs
BOREbj BOREbs
FRINGbj FRINGbs
PERSONbj PERSPbs
WKCONbj WKCONbs
CAREEbj CAREERbs
Mean
Lower
1.06897
1.65517
1.51724
.24138
1.86207
1.17241
-.72414
1.06897
Std.
Deviation
Upper
5.35144
5.27985
5.11734
2.74714
6.22050
6.44797
8.08834
5.14039
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
.99374
.98044
.95027
.51013
1.15512
1.19736
1.50197
.95455
Lower
3.10455
3.66352
3.46377
1.28634
4.22822
3.62509
2.35250
3.02427
Upper
1.076
1.688
1.597
.473
1.612
.979
-.482
1.120
Mean
Upper
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
Sig. (2tailed)
Std.
Std.
Error
Dev.
Mean
Upper
.291
.102
.122
.640
.118
.336
.633
.272
Df
111
Table 4.33: Descriptive Paired Samples Statistics of University C Staff (Junior and Senior)
Perception on Organisational Climate
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
MGTbj
MGTbs
DECbj
DECbs
CHALbj
CHALLbs
BOREbj
BOREbs
FRINGbj
FRINGbs
PERSONbj
PERSPbs
WKCONbj
WKCONbs
CAREEbj
CAREERbs
Mean
21.9655
20.8966
21.9310
20.2759
20.2069
18.6897
6.9655
6.7241
14.5862
12.7241
16.7241
15.5517
24.9655
25.6897
17.3793
16.3103
N
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
Std.
Deviation
3.86821
3.45734
4.22519
3.71192
3.34215
3.48572
2.12943
1.75044
3.66954
4.34163
4.53476
4.02302
5.71016
5.25835
3.01678
3.12939
Std. Error
Mean
.71831
.64201
.78460
.68929
.62062
.64728
.39543
.32505
.68142
.80622
.84208
.74706
1.06035
.97645
.56020
.58111
112
Table 4.34: Paired Samples Test of University A Staff (Junior and Senior) Perception on
Organisational Climate
Paired Differences
t
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
mgtbes - mgtbej
decbes - decbej
challbes - challbej
borebes - borebej
fringbes - frinfbej
persbes - persbej
wkconbes - wkcondbej
careerbes - careerbej
Mean
Lower
-1.09091
-.72727
-1.27273
2.00000
3.00000
.63636
.00000
-9.81818
Std.
Deviation
Upper
4.92858
5.27429
3.49545
2.36643
6.35610
4.00681
3.06594
49.99964
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
1.48602
1.59026
1.05392
.71351
1.91644
1.20810
.92442
15.07546
Mean
Upper
-.734
-.457
-1.208
2.803
1.565
.527
.000
-.651
df
Std.
Dev.
Lower
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Error
Mean
Upper
.480
.657
.255
.019
.149
.610
1.000
.530
113
Table 4.35: Descriptive Paired Samples Statistics of University A Staff (Junior and Senior)
Perception on Organisational Climate
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
mgtbes
mgtbej
decbes
decbej
challbes
challbej
borebes
borebej
fringbes
frinfbej
persbes
persbej
wkconbes
wkcondbej
careerbes
careerbej
Mean
21.5455
22.6364
21.4545
22.1818
19.4545
20.7273
7.5455
5.5455
13.1818
10.1818
14.1818
13.5455
26.0909
26.0909
19.0909
28.9091
N
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
3.29738
.99420
3.41388
1.02932
4.56867
1.37751
3.02715
.91272
3.04512
.91814
2.00454
.60439
1.03573
.31228
1.80907
.54545
4.66515
1.40660
3.06001
.92263
2.52262
.76060
2.80584
.84599
2.62505
.79148
2.21154
.66680
3.98634
1.20193
49.85871
15.03297
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Pair 1
mgtcraj - mgtcras
3.33333
3.57601
1.03231
1.06124
5.60542
3.229
11
.008
Pair 2
deccraj - deccras
.75000
4.65393
1.34347
-2.20697
3.70697
.558
11
.588
Pair 3
challcraj - challcras
1.91667
3.08835
.89153
-.04557
3.87891
2.150
11
.055
Pair 4
borecraj - borecras
.00000
3.04512
.87905
-1.93477
1.93477
.000
11
1.000
Pair 5
fringcraj - fringcras
1.08333
4.73782
1.36769
-1.92694
4.09360
.792
11
.445
Pair 6
perscraj - perspcras
.16667
5.76562
1.66439
-3.49664
3.82997
.100
11
.922
Pair 7
wkconcraj - wkconcras
3.25000
5.02946
1.45188
.05443
6.44557
2.238
11
.047
Pair 8
careercraj - careercras
2.41667
5.07146
1.46400
-.80558
5.63892
1.651
11
.127
114
Since the other values are higher than our specified alpha value of .05, we can then conclude
that there is no significant difference in the way junior and senior academics in Crawford
University experience their organizational climate except in the area of management and
leadership style in which the probability value is less than .05 which implies significant
difference in the way they see the management and leadership style in this University.
In comparing the mean values, Table 4.37 below presents the values for the mean and
standard deviation.
Table 4.37: Descriptive Paired Samples Statistics of University B Staff (Junior and Senior)
Perception on Organisational Climate
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
Mgtcraj
Mgtcras
Deccraj
Deccras
Challcraj
Challcras
Borecraj
Borecras
Fringcraj
Fringcras
Perscraj
Perspcras
wkconcraj
wkconcras
careercraj
careercras
Mean
20.5000
17.1667
22.3333
21.5833
20.5000
18.5833
7.8333
7.8333
11.7500
10.6667
16.2500
16.0833
27.9167
24.6667
18.0833
15.6667
N
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
3.65563
1.05529
3.35297
.96792
3.20038
.92387
4.03301
1.16423
1.73205
.50000
2.15146
.62107
1.26730
.36584
2.16725
.62563
3.07852
.88869
2.14617
.61955
4.35107
1.25605
3.57919
1.03322
4.52183
1.30534
2.57023
.74196
3.44986
.99589
2.49848
.72125
=.558, P>.0005; for challenging job, fringe benefit, personnel policies, working condition
and career ladder, the mean and standard deviation, including the t-values and the p values
are as shown in Table 4.43 above. It should also be noted that the mean values for junior and
senior academics for boredom and frustration variable are the same. This means that they
perceive the constructs under this variable the same way.
For University E, Table 4.38 presents the responses of the junior and senior academics on the
way they perceive their organizational climate variables.
Table 4.38: Paired Samples Test of University E Staff (Junior and Senior) Perception on
Organisational Climate
Paired Differences
Std.
95% Confidence
Std.
Error
Interval of the
Deviation
Mean
Difference
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
5.26702
1.03295
-1.43509
2.81970
Df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Upper
.670
Std.
Deviation
Lower
25
Std. Error
Mean
Upper
.509
Pair 1
mgtcuj mgtcus
Mean
Lower
.69231
Pair 2
deccuj deccus
.30769
5.68344
1.11462
-1.98790
2.60329
.276
25
.785
Pair 3
challcuj challcus
.92308
4.11750
.80751
-.74002
2.58617
1.143
25
.264
Pair 4
borecuj borecus
.07692
2.36513
.46384
-.87837
1.03222
.166
25
.870
Pair 5
fringcuj fringecus
.53846
5.78433
1.13440
-1.79788
2.87480
.475
25
.639
Pair 6
perscuj perscus
1.69231
5.15961
1.01188
-.39170
3.77632
1.672
25
.107
Pair 7
wkconcuj wkconcus
2.11538
7.08422
1.38933
-.74599
4.97676
1.523
25
.140
Pair 8
careercuj careercus
-.07692
4.99538
.97968
-2.09460
1.94076
-.079
25
.938
In comparing the mean values, we can conclude that there was a significant decrease in all
the organizational climate variables test score between the junior and senior academics in
University E except for the career ladder variable that has a slight increase between the
means for the junior and senior academics, (i.e. careercuj=15.4615 and careercus=15.5385).
116
Table 4.39: Descriptive Paired Samples Statistics of University E Staff (Junior and Senior)
Perception on Organisational Climate
Pair 1
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
mgtcuj
mgtcus
deccuj
deccus
challcuj
challcus
borecuj
borecus
fringcuj
fringecus
perscuj
perscus
wkconcuj
wkconcus
careercuj
careercus
Mean
20.3462
19.6538
21.8462
21.5385
21.9615
21.0385
7.2308
7.1538
12.3846
11.8462
16.7308
15.0385
25.8462
23.7308
15.4615
15.5385
N
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
3.56586
.69932
4.54262
.89088
3.27038
.64137
4.25423
.83432
3.16835
.62137
2.47355
.48510
1.30561
.25605
1.93271
.37904
3.85826
.75667
4.44245
.87124
3.43578
.67381
3.75745
.73690
3.51787
.68991
5.26542
1.03263
4.46525
.87571
3.62470
.71086
117
Table 4.40: Paired Samples Test of All University Sampled on Organisational Climate
Paired Differences
Std.
95% Confidence
Std.
Error
Interval of the
Deviation
Mean
Difference
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
6.93121
.71873 -2.80381
.05112
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Upper
-1.915
Std.
Deviation
Lower
92
Std. Error
Mean
Upper
.059
Pair 1
mgtTs - mgtTj
Mean
Lower
-1.37634
Pair 2
decTs - decTj
1.22581
7.89762
.81894
-.40069
2.85230
1.497
92
.138
Pair 3
challTs - challTj
1.08602
6.08036
.63050
-.16621
2.33826
1.722
92
.088
Pair 4
boreTs - boreTj
-1.24731
4.70812
.48821
-2.21694
-.27769
-2.555
92
.012
Pair 5
fringTs - fringTj
-5.33333
5.23229
.54256
-6.41091
-4.25576
-9.830
92
.000
Pair 6
persTs - persTj
-2.31183
5.68365
.58937
-3.48236
-1.14129
-3.923
92
.000
Pair 7
wkconTs - wkconTj
3.21505
10.82855
1.12287
.98494
5.44517
2.863
92
.005
Pair 8
careerTs - careerTj
-1.54839
18.26110
1.89359
-5.30922
2.21244
-.818
92
.416
In comparing the mean values in each of these schools, Table 4.41 below shows the mean
and standard deviation. We can deduce from the table that there are more of significant
increases in the table than significant decrease. Only in three variables we have
participation in decision making, challenging job and working condition we have significant
decreases. All the other five variables have significant increases. Since the numbers of
significant increases are more than the number of significant decreases, then we can conclude
that there are differences in the way senior academics and junior academics experience their
organizational climate. The result of the paired-samples t-test conducted to determine if there
is a difference in the way senior and junior academics perceive the existing organizational
climate (for the five private Universities under study) are presented thus;
118
mgtTs
mgtTj
decTs
decTj
challTs
challTj
boreTs
boreTj
fringTs
fringTj
persTs
persTj
wkconTs
wkconTj
careerTs
careerTj
Mean
18.8602
20.2366
21.6022
20.3763
18.8172
17.7312
7.4194
8.6667
8.6667
14.0000
12.2366
14.5484
22.5699
19.3548
17.3333
18.8817
N
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
Std. Deviation
5.02730
4.73515
4.49188
6.54568
3.60237
4.40883
2.07114
4.26649
4.26649
6.22233
4.03085
4.12710
6.97105
7.76229
4.05756
17.54426
Std. Error
Mean
.52131
.49101
.46579
.67876
.37355
.45717
.21477
.44241
.44241
.64523
.41798
.42796
.72286
.80491
.42075
1.81926
119
Table 4.42: Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Measures According to the
Selected Private Universities
UNIV A
Mean
UNIV B
Std. Dev.
Mean
UNIV C
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
UNIV D
Mean
Std. Dev.
UNIV E
Mean
Std. Dev.
mgtleader
3.2286
.39063
3.0337
.38774
2.9333
.45800
3.0790
.66684
3.2890
.47279
decision
2.9321
.32830
3.2024
.46514
3.1289
.59703
2.8021
.57188
3.3580
.51625
challenge
3.9950
.32813
3.8833
.42902
3.9957
.53309
4.0000
.70810
4.1408
.64111
boredom
2.6125
.91629
3.1875
.95340
2.9571
.75538
2.7847
.74977
2.4368
.82759
fringe
1.8550
.58351
2.1417
.39773
2.5021
.75096
1.9500
.66380
2.3801
.71627
personpolicy
3.1400
.48822
2.9583
.97084
3.5836
.74720
2.8472
.83375
2.9121
.96047
workcond
3.2469
.45949
2.9740
.81091
3.5837
.61336
2.8658
.78966
3.2445
.68247
career
3.1600
.60798
3.4167
.66442
3.7721
.62680
3.0845
.90237
3.4333
.79558
admin
2.9625
.42573
2.8333
.37349
3.0628
.58112
2.9329
.65537
3.2098
.64460
supervi
2.8188
.47362
2.9167
.54006
3.1083
.72833
2.6181
.68430
3.0192
.94492
workload
3.4875
.57443
3.3333
.67028
3.5714
.78036
3.0938
.67511
3.3515
.83066
feedback
3.7000
.76906
3.2778
.84366
3.7476
.87997
3.1343
.86789
3.3295
1.11311
communi
3.2458
.65805
3.2847
.66208
3.8338
.68455
3.1759
.84099
3.7084
.60568
salarypack
3.1000
.67178
2.8611
.47055
3.0310
.67940
2.8333
.61794
3.2663
.85267
promop
2.2813
.78075
2.6771
.66952
2.8786
.66450
2.2604
.88357
2.5489
.88580
age
2.2250
.69752
2.9167
.88055
2.6286
.83703
2.5139
.82211
2.1379
.89146
presenexpe
2.7250
1.21924
3.0000
1.14208
3.5429
1.56673
3.2222
2.54106
3.3793
1.82516
genexper
6.7500
3.90759
10.7917
5.51661
8.0000
5.45070
8.6111
7.19263
8.3793
7.41971
rank
4.7750
1.54401
3.2083
1.69344
4.3714
1.61668
4.7639
1.68250
4.5172
2.01657
Valid N (listwise)
since there were four open ended questions, and so we have twenty tables. Note also that,
percentages are based on the total sample for each school and not only on those who
answered the questions.
UNIVERSITY E
Table 4.43. Responses to the open-ended Question1 about the respondents feeling of
whether the university is doing enough to promote personal career development (n=87).
Table 4.43: Responses to Open-ended Question One
Themes/Answers
Frequency
16
12
Percentage
of Total
18.39
13.79
9
7
15
5
3
6
5
3
3
87
10.35
8.05
17.24
5.75
3.45
6.90
5.75
3.45
3.45
100
There were considerably more negative issues raised regarding respondents feeling of their
university promoting personal career development (51;i.e.16+12+15+5+3) than positive ones
(36 i.e. 9+7+6+5+3+3). Those that answer yes do so because they know there are
programmes like YATRAP, training and workshops are available, and some have benefitted
from the research funds set aside for research and publications. Some others feel the school is
making effort but that a lot could still be done to improve on the state of the personal career
development and staff development scheme compared to what is obtainable elsewhere. Some
persons are new in the system and so they could not really comment on the state of personal
career development while others suggested preference should be given to junior academics
for advancement, hence why they are not doing quite well at present.
Table 4.44. Responses to the open-ended Question number 2 about what the respondents feel
concerning their work environment (n=87).
121
There were more negative issues (51) regarding work environment raised than positive issues
(36). Considering the results in the table above, respondents raised complaints about the
disenchantment and discriminatory tendencies operating in the work environment which they
suggested should be removed to sanitize the situation.
Table 4.44: Responses to Open-ended Question Two
Themes/ Answers
Frequency
Good/o.k./cute/classic
Conducive, supportive, satisfactory
The working condition (salary) should be looked into to improve workers
take home pay/ Needs improvement
Safe, friendly, conducive, cool/ I feel good
As a young University, more should be done to sanitize situation and
remove disenchantment and discriminatory tendencies
Conducive but tensed environment
Very unfriendly, but conducive for academics-absence of cultism, noise
prevalent in the public schools
No
Conducive, though at high cost/expensive
Not satisfactory/ Fair enough
Relatively fair but can be improved upon
Conducive to an extent
Delicate, contradictory, dangerous and intriguing
Tense. We live in fear of being fired anytime, too many rules, many
eavesdroppers and backbiters/backstabbers
No answer
21
7
17
Percentage
of Total
24.14
8.05
19.54
7
5
8.05
5.75
3
3
3.45
3.45
1
2
6
4
4
2
4
1.15
2.30
6.90
4.60
4.60
2.30
4.60
1
87
1.15
100
From Table 4.45 below, the highest frequency we have is for people that are of the opinion
that the University is not doing enough to promote professional career development (26.44%,
5%). However, large number of respondents agreed to the fact that the University is doing
enough (yes=14) to promote professional career development, some answered further by
telling us the various means through which they promote professional career development i.e.
through seminars, workshop, e.t.c.
Table 4.45: Responses to Open-Ended Question Three
Themes/ Answers
Frequency
23
11
16
14
7
5
1
4
6
87
Percentage
of Total
26.44
12.64
18.39
16.09
8.05
5.75
1.15
4.60
6.90
100
Frequency
3
4
6
11
18
14
9
3
2
14
3
87
123
Percentage of Total
3.45
4.60
6.90
12.64
20.69
16.09
10.35
3.45
2.30
16.09
3.45
100
Table 4.46. above shows that there are more respondents that felt they are not involved in
decision making, while on the other side, a lot of them agree that they participated in decision
making only at departmental and college board level and if related to their areas. They feel
that decision making is autocratic as only the principal officers make decision, and where
they are present, their opinions rarely count. In most cases, they are just told about decision
later, but mostly not involved in decision making. Some of the respondents indicated that
they are only involved partially or minimally. They only participate to a certain extent which
can be through various committees or unit decisions. 3.45% respondents did not indicate any
answer here- i.e. no response from their end to this question, while two respondents (2.30%)
categorically declared that they are not at all involved in decision making.
UNIVERSITY D
Table 4.47. Responses to the open-ended Question 1 about the respondents feeling on
whether the University is doing enough to promote personal career development (n=72).
Table 4.47: Responses to Open-ended Question One
Themes/ Answers
Yes/ I think so
Not sure/ Not really
Not enough
To some extent
No
Yes, there is need for improvement
They are making efforts but at times contradictory
To a considerable level which is commendable
No answer
Frequency
17
7
7
8
3
15
6
6
3
72
Percentage of Total
23.61
9.72
9.72
11.11
4.17
20.83
8.33
8.33
4.17
100
but at times contradictory. Also, the same number (i.e. 6) and the same percentage (i.e.
8.33%) of respondents agreed they do to a considerable level which is commendable.
However, about 4% (i.e. 3 respondents) did not provide answers to the question.
124
Table 4.48. Responses to open-ended question 2 on what the respondents feel about their
work environment (n=72).
From Table 4.48 below, more than half of the respondents are positive about their work
environment. They felt the environment is safe, suitable, cool, conducive, ok, good,
fascinating, cute and satisfactory (22.22%, 19.44% and 13.89%), while about 3% also felt it
is conducive but not too friendly.
Table 4:48: Responses to Open-Ended Question Two
Themes/Answers
Frequency
16
14
10
2
11
5
3
4
Percentage
of Total
22.22
19.44
13.89
2.78
15.28
6.94
4.17
5.56
1
4
2
72
0.72
5.56
2.78
100
Frequency
13
14
9
13
3
6
7
3
3
1
72
Percentage of Total
18.06
19.44
12.50
18.06
4.17
8.33
9.72
4.17
4.17
1.39
100
Table 4.49 above shows that only 18% (13respondents) of the respondents gave the positive
answers that the University is doing enough to promote professional career development. The
rest 82% are of the opinion that though they are trying, yet there is still need for
improvement, that policies should change to promote professionalism. Some said it is fair
(i.e..4.17%), 18.06% said not enough, not really or not quite while declared no and no
further comment. Only one person did not provide answer here while three persons cannot
say whether such programme exists or not.
Table 4.50. Responses to open ended question 4 on whether the respondents are involved in
decision making (n=72).
Table 4.50 Responses to Open-Ended Question Four
Themes/ Answers
Yes
No
Not always
To some extent/ partially
Not really
Not at all
Indirectly because it is only at the departmental level
No answer
Frequency
8
33
6
4
4
3
7
4
72
Percentage Of Total
11.11
45.83
8.33
5.56
5.56
41.67
9.72
5.56
100
126
Frequency
16
23
7
10
8
2
2
1
1
70
Percentage of Total
22.86
32.86
10
14.29
11.43
2.86
2.86
1.43
1.43
100
Frequency
28
12
8
9
7
3
2
1
70
Percentage
of Total
40
17.14
11.43
12.86
10
4.29
2.86
1.43
100
tensed, not conducive. 12.86% indicated that there too much control and not suitable in the
area of pay, thus suggested that it should be improved upon, also in the area that the intention
and action are counter productive. Only one respondent did not answer the question.
Table 4.53. Responses to open ended Question 3 on how the respondents feel about whether
the University is doing enough to promote professional career development (n= 70).
Frequency
Percentage of
Total
12.86
Good, yes
25
35.71
11.43
11
15.71
No
8.57
11.43
I cant say
2.86
1.43
1.43
70
100
No answer
Frequency
27
15
8
17
3
70
Percentage of Total
38.57
21.43
11.43
4.20
4.29
100
(11.43). Some indicated yes but at the unit or departmental level representing 21.43% of the
respondents.
UNIVERSITY B
Table 4.55 shows responses to open-ended Question 1 about the respondents feelings on
whether the university is doing enough to promote personal career development (n=24).
Table 4.55: Responses to Open-Ended Question One
Themes/ Answers
Ok
Yes
Fairly enough, partially
No
Trying but below average/ can be improved upon
Frequency
2
7
6
6
3
24
Percentage of Total
8.33
29.17
25.00
25.00
12.50
100
Frequency
8
12
4
24
Percentage of Total
33.33
50
16.67
100
129
Frequency
2
6
2
5
2
2
2
3
24
Percentage of Total
8.33
25
8.33
20.83
8.33
8.33
8.33
12.5
100
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE OF
Yes
16.67
Sometimes/ partially
16.67
No
37.5
29.17
24
100
TOTAL
130
UNIVERSITY A
Table 4.59. Responses to open-ended Question 1 about what the respondents feelings are on
whether the University is doing enough to promote personal career development (n=40).
Table 4. 59: Responses to Open-Ended Question One
Themes/ Answers
Partially
Yes
No
Not too good
Not really
Not enough but there is room for improvement and this is suggested
Frequency
3
10
7
2
4
14
40
Percentage of Total
7.5
25
17.5
5
10
35
100
Frequency
12
9
10
9
40
Percentage of Total
30
22.5
25
22.5
100
131
Frequency
10
7
8
3
4
2
4
2
40
Percentage of Total
25
17.5
20
7.5
10
5
10
5
100
Frequency
14
6
11
6
3
40
Percentage of Total
35
15
27.5
15
7.5
100
132
Variables
Test Used
Findings
What literature
Indicates
Hypothesis 1
There would be
no
positive
significant
relationship
between
organizational
climate and job
satisfaction
among academics
in
southwest
Nigeria
For OC
Management and Leadership
style,Participation in Decision
making,
Challenging
jobs,
Boerbom and frustration, Fringe
benefits, Personnel policies,
Working condition and Career
ladder.
For JS
Appropriate administrative style,
Support from superiors, Work
load,
Feedback
about
performance, Clear lines of
communication, Salary package
and Promotional opportunities.
Pearson
Product
Moment
Correlation
Coefficient was used.
Correlation here using
2 tail test and 0.01
significant level, our r
stood at .671 which
shows that there is a
significant
positive
relationship
between
the two variables.
Research
Hypothesis 2.
Factors like clear
lines
of
communication,
salary
package
and promotional
opportunities
would
not
contribute to job
satisfaction
PROMOOPPpromotional
opportunities, SALARYPACKsalary
package,
COMMUNICATN- clear lines
of communication.
Multiple
Regression
which measures nature
of relationship and
contributions
of
variables to a system of
equation was used to
analyze the hypothesis.
This is upheld at
r2=.825, df=292 at
0.000 significant level.
Pearson
Product
Moment
Correlation Coefficient analysis
finding shows that there is a
significant positive relationship
between organizational climate and
job satisfaction. Therefore, the first
hypothesis is upheld at sum of
squares and cross- products of
40.268 and 35.118 respectively, df
=293 and p value =0.671
significant level.
Correlation here is high because
Pearson
Product
Moment
Correlation Coefficient analysis
reveals the significant positive
relationship between the major
variables
i.e.
Organizational
Climate and Job Satisfaction.
Findings show that 82.5% of the
variability in job satisfaction can
be explained by factors like clear
lines of communication, realistic
salary package and promotional
opportunities. This results in the
rejection of the null hypothesis and
the adoption of the alternative
hypothesis.
Research
Hypothesis 3
Proportion
of
faculty leaving a
University based
on dissatisfactory
level
of
organizational
climate cannot be
significantly
described
by
work
load,
feedback about
performance and
support
from
superiors.
Multiple
Regression
was used to analyze the
hypothesis. This is
upheld at r2= .798, df=
291 at 0.000 significant
level.
Research
Hypothesis 4
DECISIONMAKEdecision
nmaking, BOREDOM- boredom,
Multiple
Regression
was used in analyzing
133
Organizational
climate consist of
participation in
decision making.
boredom
and
frustration,
personnel
policies
and
working
conditions which
would
not
significantly
encourage
job
satisfaction
among academic
staff in private
university.
WORKCONDworking
condition,
PERSPOLICYpersonnel policy.
comprising
personnel
policies, working conditions,
opportunity in partaking in
decision
making.
For
example, Agho (1993) and
Moorhead
&
Griffin(1998),admitted that
communication,
problem
solving, decision making,
learning and motivation all
can be affected by the
organizational
climate,
which in turn might have
impact on the effectiveness
and productivity of the
organization as well as the
work
environment
and
employee well being in the
workplace.
Some
studies
(
Watzon,2000;
VinokurKaplan,1996 and Schneider,
2008) found that
these
variables- boredom and
frustration,
personnel
policies working conditions
and participation in decision
making
can be said to
reliably
make
up
organizational climate.
Research
Hypothesis 5
There would be
no
positive
significant
difference in the
way senior and
junior academic
perceive
their
organizational
climate.
134
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Introduction
The previous chapter presented the data analyses of the study. This chapter presents the
summary of the findings, the conclusions and recommendations for further studies.
The purpose of the study was to identify elements within the organizational climate that may
cause satisfaction among academic staff in selected private Universities in South- west
Nigeria and provide guidelines for improving the situation.
environment. This is based on the researchers observations during interaction with the
academic staff coupled with the fact that there had been constant mobility of highly skilled
academics from one University to another (Kestetner, 1994). Literature also shows that
University lecturers are currently facing many challenges in education and society, which
may well affect their levels of job satisfaction (Kniveton, 1991). For example: (1) Lecturers
complained of the University management practice of favouritism when selecting academics
for career development: (2) Lecturers see every now and then meetings as not too good
because these prevent them from doing their best on the job as a result of the effect of
boredom that result from here. (3) They complained about their non participation when
developing or revising the goals and objectives of the institution which they see as a
developmental process with their suggestions.
In Chapter One, the observed views of the academics with regard to factors that led to their
satisfaction were generally identified. The theoretical framework of the research was briefly
introduced, namely Herzbergs two-factors theory or motivation-Hygiene theory. The goal
and the objectives of the study were also provided.
In Chapter Two, the literature review with regard to organizational climate was discussed.
The chapter also included discussions on the relevant literature regarding Herzbergs twofactor theory as it formed the theoretical framework for this study. Promotion of job
satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, motivating factors, hygiene factors and organizational
climate were dealt with. Towards the end of the chapter, activities that promote
organizational climate were discussed.
Chapter Three focused on the research methodology. A cross sectional study design with an
exploratory and descriptive design was used. The justification for the use of these designs
focus on the phenomenon of interest, which according to this study, is to find out whether
there is a difference in the way senior academics and junior academics perceive their
organizational climate and help in identifying factors relating to organizational climate that
cause job satisfaction among academics. The survey method was used to gather data
regarding the organizational climate. The study population from which the sample was drawn
136
consists of eighteen private Universities in the South West Nigeria. Out of these eighteen
private Universities, five were selected as the study sample through judgmental sampling
method. Thus, questionnaires were administered to the academic staff ranging from the
Professors, Associate Professors, etc.
The research design, population and sample were explained. The research instrument, namely
a structured questionnaire was discussed, and the validity and reliability of the instrument
were explained.
In Chapter Four, the analyses and interpretations of the data were dealt with. Tables 4.1 to
Tables 4.5b report responses on the demographic profile of the participants, showing their
distributions in terms of rank/level in the University, years the respondents have been in the
current University, gender, years they have spent lecturing in the University system generally
and age. Table 4.6 gave the confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 4.7 4.21 gave the descriptive statistics on the respondents views about the factors in
organizational climate, which could result in job satisfaction of employees, namely
appropriate administrative style, support from supervisors, work load,
feedback about
137
Hypothesis Five concerns the perception of the junior and senior staff members on how they
experience their organizational climate were presented in Tables 4.36 4.47. It was not only
that, responses to open ended questions were presented in Tables 4.48 4.56for University
C, Tables 4.57 4.60 for University B and Tables 4.61 4.68 reported responses to the open
ended questions for University A academic staff and Table 4.69 gave the overall summary of
findings of the study. These tables gave the researcher an insight into organizational climate
of the selected private Universities in Southwest Nigeria which should enable the researcher
to make specific and relevant conclusions.
In Chapter five, the researcher presents the discussions on the findings in chapter four, draws
conclusion from the findings and comes up with recommendations, which address the factors
that contributed to job satisfaction among academic staff. Also how these negative factors
can be prevented in the future, which equally serves as the contributions to knowledge are
indicated in this chapter.
However, going by the above analysis that the correlation coefficient measures the degree to
which two things vary together or oppositely, this present study correlated two variables:
organizational climate and job satisfaction in testing Hypothesis One. The findings showed a
significant positive relationship between these two variables. For the two variables at the
same significant level of 0.01 (2-tailed) and degree of freedom (at 293), their Pearson
correlation stood at .67, also supported the results from other studies. Friedlander and
Margulies (1968) studied the multiple impacts of organizational climate components on
individual job values on worker satisfaction. They found that climate of an organization and
job satisfactions of their employees vary together. That climate had the greatest impact on
satisfaction with interpersonal relationships on a job, a moderate impact upon satisfaction
with recognizable advancement in the organization, and relatively less impact upon selfrealization from task involvement.
Pritchard and Karasidt (1993) studied 76 employees from two different industrial
organizations. They found climate dimensions to be moderately and strongly related to job
satisfaction in facets as security, working conditions and advancement opportunities
respectively. In other words, factors like clear lines of communication, realistic salary
package and promotional opportunities contributed to job satisfaction.
Judge, et al (2001) in their study listed clearer lines of communication, opportunities for
promotion and competitive salary package as variables, which motivate people and influence
job satisfaction. They said immediately these are absent or inadequate, workers became
neutral toward work but when present, workers were highly motivated and satisfied. Luthans
(2002) revealed that when there were unclear lines of communication and the opportunities
to grow on ones job was not there, there would be the tendency for one not to find his
employment sufficiently satisfactory. Most scholars recognized that job satisfaction is a
global concept that also comprises various facets. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969)
considered five of such facets as pay, promotions, co-workers, supervisors and the work
itself. Some researchers classified job satisfaction into intrinsic and extrinsic elements where
pay and promotions are considered as extrinsic factors with co-workers, supervision and the
139
work itself are considered as intrinsic factors. Silver, Paulin and Manning (1997) see job
satisfaction as a multidimensional system of interrelated variables that are divided into three
categories that are:
a) Characteristically related to personal factors like attitude, values.
b) Intrinsic rewards related to characteristics of job tasks such as opportunity for
advancement, opportunity to be creative, problem solving challenges; and,
c) Extrinsic rewards having to do with organizational characteristics such as
wages/salaries, benefits, working hours, etc.
d) Marriner-Tomey (1996) also viewed job satisfaction as a match between the
employees interest with the organizational goals and benefits accruing from it. That
job satisfaction includes aspects like satisfaction with work, pay, opportunities for
promotion, clear lines of communication, etc. In practice, the views of these authors
are appropriate as employees generally feel satisfied when they receive good salary
package and there is opportunity for promotion and advancement. Gibson, Ivancevich
and Donnelly (1997) and Luthans (1998) identify dimensions that are associated with
job satisfaction- namely salaries, job promotion opportunities, supervision and coworkers. All these support the acceptance of this proposition that factors listed
actually contribute to job dissatisfaction if not in place. Even Herzberg in his study
found that intrinsic factors (including pay/salary, promotional opportunities, etc.) were
more strongly correlated with satisfaction.
e) Moreover, Marriner-Tomey (1996) admitted that dissatisfaction occurs when people
perceive that they are being treated unfairly with salaries, benefits, incentives, job
security, etc. He stressed that poor planning, poor communication, inadequate
explanations of decisions affecting jobs, unclear rules and regulations, etc. are all
sources of dissatisfaction within the organization. From the point of view of Morrison
(1993), low salaries promote dissatisfaction and would make workers feel frustrated.
Gibson, et al (1997) indicated that employees might perceive the amount of pay
received as unfair or fair as they normally expect equity among the salaries that are
received by them and their colleagues who hold the same post description. As Ching
(1997) puts it, poor salaries that are not uncompetitive lead to unhappiness and
discontentment. Thus, extensive study and application of these factors in literature rest
140
on the strong believe that factors like unclear lines of communication, low/unrealistic
salary package and lack of promotional opportunities contribute to job dissatisfaction.
Again, as hypothesized by Greenberg and Baron (1993), that organisations reward
system and policies pertaining to promotional opportunities, lines of communication,
etc. are highly related to job satisfaction, which makes it important for the
organization to make employees aware of these rewards so as to eliminate
misunderstanding among the employer and the employees. Unclear reward systems
and lines of communication lead to conflict and unfair practices within the workplace.
organizational goals and aid in the development of an employee. They further state that
supervision is divided into technical skills which involve the use of knowledge,
procedure, techniques and equipment to perform their tasks, the absence of which will
bring about dissatisfaction.
He emphasized that employees could be given opportunities to update their knowledge
through training, induction orientation procedures as well as providing in-service
education and on-the-job training. However, Gillies (1982) also supported this
submission.
f) Carrell, Elbert and Hatfield (1998) submitted that satisfaction is promoted where there
are good supervision and the employee perceives the supervision as helpful,
competent and effective. They reiterated that poor supervision may arise within the
work environment when the supervisor is insensitive.
University E
Responses to open-ended Question number One (1) on what the feelings of the
respondents are all about, whether the university is doing enough to promote personal
career development indicated more negative issues than the positive ones. Some
supported the question by indicating yes and still went further to outline some of the
programmes on ground which the university is using to promote personal career
development such as YATRAP (Young Academic Training Programme) for young
graduates especially their graduated students, M.Sc and Ph.D progammes for their staff
and payment of annual dues for the staff professional affiliations. Some answered yes, to
a large extent but added that a lot still needed to be done in the areas of staff development
scheme. Some persons indicated they were relatively new in the system and so they could
not really comment on the state of the schools career development. Some suggested
preference should be given to junior academics for advancement as this accounted for
their inability to do well at present. However, a large numbers of respondents indicated
some dissatisfaction with career development. They answered not at all, not enough,
while some answered no. In summary, since we have more negative answers than the
positive answers, this suggests that both groups are dissatisfied with the way career
development programmes are being handled in this school.
142
Response to open ended Question Two concerning the respondents feelings about their
work environment revealed that there were certain aspects that affected the functioning of
the respondents negatively. There were more negative issues (51 out of n =87) raised than
positive issues (36) regarding the respondents work environment. These include; (a)
disenchantment and discriminatory tendencies in the work environment, (b) costly/
expensive environment, (c) unfriendly, tense, delicate, contradictory and intriguing.
Though some described the environment as classic, ok, satisfactory, conducive and cool,
a lot of respondents looked at it from the point of view of salary, that it should be looked
into to enhance workers take home pay. Some described it as being dangerous- that they
lived in fear of being fired anytime, with too many rules and many eavesdroppers /
backstabbers. Some described the environment, as being tensed, though conducive for
academics, especially with the absence of cultism and noise that are prevalent in the
public schools.
Response to open-ended Question Three about their universitys professional career
development generated the highest frequency of people that are dissatisfied with the
professional career development progamme of the university. Some are of the opinion
that they are not doing enough and some said they do but they do it in pretence. However,
some others favoured the programme that it is a good effort though there are areas for
improvement. Some commented that the school sponsors workshops, seminars, and
conferences.
Responses to open ended Question Four about the respondents involvement in decision
making revealed that decision making is limited to only the principal officers in the
university .A greater number of them indicated that they are not in any way involved in
decision making in the university, and where they are involved, it is only at the
departmental or college board level and if related to their areas. They see the decisionmaking platform as autocratic when only the principal officers make decisions, that even
where they are present, their opinions rarely count.
University D
Response to open ended Question One on whether the university is doing enough to
promote personal career development have more negative answers than positive ones. As
143
a matter of fact, a good number answered yes, though with recommendations that there is
need for improvement. Others indicated that it is to a considerable level, which is
commendable, and eight (11.11%) are of the opinion that it is to some extent. Seven
(9.72%) indicated that they are not sure while seven (9.72%) said it is not enough. Three
(4.17%) respondents did not provide any answer.
However, for the second open ended question on the respondents feelings about their
work environment, more than half of the respondents are positive about their work
environment. They described that the environment is challenging and encouraging
(5.56%), conducive and fascinating (19.4%), safe and suitable (22.22%), satisfactory and
fairly okay (13.89 and15.28%). Only two respondents representing 2.78% indicated that
though it is conducive, yet not too friendly. Five (6.94%) commented that the facilities
are ok but that the policies should be employees friendly, while 5.56% looked at it from
the viewpoint of better package that considers the interest of staff.
Response from open-ended Question Three on what the respondents feel about the
universitys professional career development programme received positive outcomes. Six
respondents (8.33%) indicated that the university is trying though with little adjustments
and the policies modified to be in full support of professionalism. In other words, that
there is room for improvement. Seven (9.72%) out rightly say no, while 4.17% said it is
fair as they do little upon which better performances are expected.
Information from the open-ended Question Four indicated that about 90% of the
respondents indicated that they are not in any way involved in decision making. Further
probe into the analysis revealed that almost everybody that indicated they are not
involved in decision making is junior academics. This suggests that decision making in
this university is reserved exclusively for the senior academics.
University C
Answers to open-ended Question One did not meet with favourable responses from the
academics. Only 25 out of the 70 respondents have positive answers. The remaining ones
are of the opinion that they are not doing sufficiently enough (22.86%),10% said they are
doing fairly while 11.43% are of the opinion that they are not doing at all. The university
144
University B
Responses to open-ended Question One are satisfactory;-that is, the respondents indicated
okay 8.33% and yes 29.17% to the fact that the university is doing enough to promote
personal career development. 12.50% indicated that their efforts are below average but
can be improved upon.
Moreover, all the respondents describe their work environment in response to open
ended Question Two as either good, fine, safe, serene, ideal or perfect.
For open ended question three, responses were favourably disposed. The percentages of
positive responses were more than the negative responses. Only 12.5% of the total
percentage feel that the University is not doing too good to promote professional career
development. Thus, we found out that the university is doing enough to promote
professional career development.
145
Not only that, in the area of participation in decision making, only 15% of the
respondents indicated yes as their answers, while 15% others responded with
sometimes/partially and 27.5% indicated no while 35% responded not in all cases
respectively.
University A
Responses to the first open ended question indicated that the school is only doing 25% in
promoting personal career development. 17.5% gave no out rightly as answers, while
7.5% said they do it partially, 35% indicated not enough, of which room for improvement
was suggested. For the second question, everybody gave satisfactory answers about their
work environment which they described as serene, interesting, conducive, well secured,
etc
Responses to the third open- ended question indicated that the respondents are dissatisfied
with the universitys professional career development. They indicated that the university
still has a long way to go because the programme on ground is not enough/not fair but
needs improvement. They recommended that the package needed to increase.
The fourth question on whether the respondents are involved in decision making indicated
that about 85% of the respondents are either not involved at all or to some extent/ not at
all times.
Analysis of the climate items in the study yielded a total of five climate factors for the
organization, confirming the multidimensionality of the climate construct. The correlation
results between the climate and satisfaction dimensions in this study were not too
different from the findings of other researchers who studied similar research topic.
The findings of this study show the relationship between organizational climate and job
satisfaction. In other words, that there is a significant positive relationship between
organizational climate and job satisfaction. Thus, it implies that certain factors exist
within the organizational climate that affects the satisfaction of employees on the job.
This means the factors when identified must be studied carefully, see how they affect the
performance and satisfaction of employees and take appropriate action to minimize their
negative effects.
146
The factors within the environment of an organization which constitute the climate
include personnel policies, working conditions, boredom, frustration and participation in
decision making. They were hypothesized and tested and the study found out that these
factors exist within an organization and they can be said to reliably make up
organizational climate; therefore, measures to initiate such a climate may be justified.
This will help the organization to understand the extent to which these factors if not
properly managed could lead to job dissatisfaction of employees. For example
information gathered on personnel policies will be a pointer to the management that
employees need to be informed about any new or revised policies especially the ones
affecting their performances and that departmental policy should be framed in a way that
will facilitate the achievement of its members goals.
For the working conditions, information gathered will encourage the senior colleagues to
create a challenging environment for their members, allow for the use of their own
discretion and inform the university as a whole that equipment and resources necessary
for the execution of their responsibilities must be provided.
Not only that, in the area of their participation in decision making, responses gathered
showed that large number of the academic staff reported that they are neither involved in
decision making nor their abilities taking into consideration when delegating. These, they
submitted affect their abilities to perform since it is the senior academics that schedule
work for all categories of lecturers from which they are not allowed to question rules set
by the senior colleagues.
Important organizational climate factors which can cause satisfaction among academics
were again identified. The factors include clear lines of communication, realistic salary
package and promotional opportunities.
These are necessary for certain reasons. If the lines of communication are clear, it means
the rules and regulations they have to follow the universitys goals/objectives and mission
statement and the exact performance expected of the employee will be clearly outlined
and communicated to all. This will enhance employee performance and improves their
morale as Udogo (2008) puts it; good communication induces people to put forth greater
147
efforts in their work performances upon which the success of every organization
depends.
were more negative answers to these questions. This means that, the academics are
dissatisfied with the state of the personal career development and staff development
schemes in their various schools which they are attributed to their not doing quite well at
present.
The same responses go for their perception on what their universities are doing to
promote professional career development. That is, they are of the view that their
universities are not doing enough to promote career development (University E, 26.44%;
University D, 19.44%; University C, 8.57%; University B, 8.33%; University A, 8.33%).
Within the range of observations included in this study, however, satisfaction increases as
academics are given greater support and direction (Table 4.16, descriptive statistics on
support from superiors with mean statistics of 2.58, 2.69, 2.86 and 2.99; all of which are
considered high enough above 2.50 on a 5-point scale).
When an academic perceives that he is an active participant in decision making especially
in areas that relate to his work and in determining the policies and standards that affect
him, he tends to be happier with those policies and standards as well as with the other
members of his department who administer and implement them.
In the area of support from superiors/supervisors, academics tend to be more satisfied
with their jobs when they perceive that their immediate superior closely directs and
monitors their activities.
Junior academics are generally more satisfied with their jobs when management and
senior colleagues provide them with adequate assistance and support- in the form of
information, helping them to solve personal problems, sometimes doing personal favour
for them, encouraging them to take initiatives in solving problems, willingness to listen to
job related problems etc- to help them cope with the non routine problems and unusual
demands they encounter on the job.
There may be limits to the amount of direction, support and structure that academics will
find desirable. If carried to extremes, for instance, close supervision might so reduce the
academics autonomy that he will feel overly restricted and become dissatisfied with his
superior as well as many other aspects of his job.
149
5.4 Recommendations
However the following are the recommendations using the satisfaction antecedents and
the various organizational climate variables identified in the study.
In the area of the universities personal career development, we recommend that the
universities management be more responsive to the academic career development
programmes as had been suggested by the staff especially to the junior academics for
their advancement .
The management team should continually conduct workshops, or seminars to update
their staff in their various endeavours and different leadership styles so that they can
select the most appropriate leadership style in accordance with a particular situation
maturity of their staff and be updated on the current research modules and outlets.
The management team should conduct a survey within their universities in order to
determine the availability and adequacy of equipment and resources necessary for the
execution of responsibilities and negotiate remedial action with the authorities. Also
strict control over existing equipments and material resources should be taken to
prevent unnecessary wastage and loss.
Management team should design a year plan regarding career development for all
categories of academic staff to ensure that all academics are given a fair opportunity to
develop. They should design criteria for selecting the staff who are to be sent for
career development and training, and administer these selection criteria fairly.
Management should not practice favouritism when selecting staff for career
development. A selection committee can be established with representatives from the
different categories of academics staff. Policies and opportunities regarding career
development should be collated and communicated to all employees through
circular/memos and meetings to ensure that all academics are well informed.
The management team should show recognition and appreciation for work well
done/achievement and provision of incentives to facilitate job satisfaction e.g.
announcement at meetings, personal letters and a rotating trophy. MarrinerTomey(1996) and Robbinson (2007) state that positive reinforcement increases the
probability of a recurrence of the desired behaviour.
150
Management and senior academic staff should design a system that will encourage
academic to put forward their inputs regarding empowering possibilities by creating
suggestion boxes that can be placed in prominent areas. Not only that, management
should acknowledge good ideas put forward by subordinates by giving credit privately
and publicly. They should create opportunities for growth for example; by giving
academics (junior academics most importantly) challenging assignments.
The management team should involve academics when developing or revising the
goals and objectives of the institution through workshops, so that academic
suggestions can form part of the development process, thus enabling successful
implementation. Also, they should conduct workshops on cultivating and emphasizing
ethical standards, loyalty and value clarification.
Management should ensure that existing benefits for academic staff are fairly, justly
and competitively allocated to them. They should allocate courses to academics
according to their skills and preference so that they do not leave the organization
because they are allocated courses they do not feel comfortable with.
Management can arrange meetings to be once in a month, so as to promote
communication between the academics and thus reduce the effects of boredom
resulting from every now and then meetings which prevent them from doing their best
on their jobs. The use of circulars and memos should be encouraged to ensure that all
academics have the same information without having to meet all the time.
5.5 Contributions to Knowledge
The study has contributed immensely to knowledge in the following ways:
a) The study provides valuable compact of ideas, facts and figures that can be used by
academics, management practitioners and consultants in understanding the dynamics
of relationships and resultant effects between organizational climate and job
satisfaction variables.
b) The study provides insight into organizational factors that impinge on job satisfaction
in a privatized environment using private universities as sample area.
c) The empirical investigation into the relevant research data on job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction studies showed that very few of them have focused on job satisfaction
of the university teachers in relation to their organizational climate. Even these few
151
studies had been carried out in UK, USA and Malaysia. There is none of this research
area among academics in Nigeria. Thus, this study will provide the extent to which
research findings in these countries can be applied to Nigerias organizational climate.
d) The previous studies on ground have explained a workers job satisfaction as a
function of the individuals personal characteristics and characteristics of the job itself
using variables like age, gender, educational status, time in position, conflict,
closeness of supervision, amount of communication, etc. However, this study had
provided other variables like lines of communication, salary package, promotional
opportunities, personnel policies, working conditions, participation in decision
making, etc, to study job satisfaction in which none of these studies used combination
of these variables. This study therefore, provides research opportunities for further
researchers on the field to expand the horizon of knowledge on these variables thus
identified as job satisfaction antecedents.
e) A lot of limitations were identified during the study such as the concentration of the
study on the private universities alone, which limit the reliability and validity of the
results obtained. Thus, the study then paves way into other research opportunities in
the field to stretch the depth of knowledge into public universities- i.e. the federal and
state universities. It also serves as eye opener to conduct the research into other zones
in Nigeria to see whether their organizational climate in relation to job satisfaction of
the academics in those places will differ from what we have in the south-western
Nigeria.
f) The study provided differences in the perceptions of junior and senior academics in
the university environment and the explanations of measured differences in their job
satisfaction levels.
g)
Above all, adoptable policies and strategies for mitigating organizational correlates of
job dissatisfaction were recommended/ preferred.
152
5.6
The limitations of this study are identified so that the findings can be interpreted
correctly within the context of the study, while the recommendations will be discussed
by using the job dissatisfaction antecedents and the various organizational climates
identified in the study. The limitation of the study covers areas such as the population,
sample, methodology and data analyses.
The total population of this study from which the sample was drawn include the
eighteen private universities in the southwestern Nigeria published by National
Universities Commission (NUC) as at January 2009. Because this study sample was
limited to the southwestern Nigeria, it implies that other private institutions in the
South-south, South-east, North, etc that are not included were ignored. Most
importantly because the environment in which these ones are situated may give
another perspective on the organizational climate of these universities. Hence, one
reason the researcher may not be able to generalize the results to all the private
universities within the country.
A study that attempts to find causal effects of variables (Organizational Climate and
Job satisfaction) and the changing nature of the variables over time should use a more
appropriate research design to collect data. Cross-sectional research design is used
because it uses one-time-only observation but involves as many variables as are
necessary for the study. Thus, the research design may fail to capture the continuous
relationships between variables. Unlike longitudinal study, cross-sectional design does
not capture causal relationships and the continuous changes in the variables. It only
provides on the spot assessment of an institution (or company) and it saves time.
Another limitation of the study is in the area of the population for the study. The study
used private universities in the southwest Nigeria. The population can equally be
extended to all the private universities in the country and this will cover all the
geopolitical zones in Nigeria from which the sample can then be drawn.
One major limitation of the study is that it concentrated on private universities only.
This may affect the level of reliability and validity of the results obtained. Future
researchers should look at the relationships between the two variables considered in
the study in the public universities (i.e. both federal and state universities). Better still,
153
the perception of both the public and private lecturers on the two variables can be
combined in a study and compared to see whether the lecturers in the two categories
of schools perceive their organizational climate in relation to their job satisfaction
differently.
154
REFERENCES
Abu Saad, T. and Hendrix, V. L. (1995). Organizational Climate and Teachers Job
Satisfaction in a Multi-Cultural Milieu: The Case of the Bedouin Arab Schools in
Israel. Education Development, 15(2), 141 153.
Adedayo, O. A. (2006). Understanding Statistics. Lagos: JAS Publisher.
Adigun, I.O & Stephenson, G.M (1992). Source of Job Motivation and Satisfaction Among
British and Nigerian Samples. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 369 -376.
Agho, A.O, Mueller, C.W and Price, J.L (1993). Determinants of Employee Job
Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. Human Relations. 46, 1007-1027
Alderfer, P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance 10(6), 142 175.
Angerer, W. (2003). Successful Human Resource Management. Boston: Irwin.
Armstrong, M. (1993). A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, London: Kogan
Page 4th Edition.
Arnold, H.J & House, R.J(1980). Methodological and Substantive Extensions to the Job
Characteristics Model of Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 25, 161-183.
Arvey, R.D; Bouchard, T.J; Segal, N.l & Abraham, I.M (1989). Job Satisfaction:
Environmental and Genetic Components. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74, 187192.
Asika, N. (2000). Research Methodology in the Behavioural Science. Ikeja: Longman.
Barbie, E. (1989). Survey Research Methods, California: Wadeswirth Publishing Company,
2nd, Edition.
Baron, R (1996). Behaviour in Organizations. Newton: Allyn and Bacon.
Banjoko, S.A (2006). Managing Corporate Reward Systems. Lagos: Pumark Educational
Publishers.
Barbie, E. (1989). Survey Research Methods, California: Wadeswirth Publishing Company,
2nd, Edition.
Baron, R (1996). Behaviour in Organizations. Newton: Allyn and Bacon.
155
Brief, A.P; Burke, M.J, George, J.M; Robinson, B. S and Webster, J (1988). Should
Negative Affectivity Remain an Unmeasured Variable in the Study of Job Stress?
Journal of Applied Psychology. 73, 193-198
Brief, A.P; Butcher, A & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, Disposition and Job Attitudes: The
Effects of Positive Mood Inducing Events and Negative Affectivity on Job
Satisfaction in a Field Experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 62, 55-62
Brief, A.P. (1998). Attitudes In and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks , C.A; Sage
Brief , A.P & Roberson , L (1999) . Job Attitude Organization. An exploratory study
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(2), 717-727.
Brink, H. I. (1996). Foundations of Research Methodology. Kenwyn: Juta.
Bruce, W. M. (1992). Balancing Job Satisfaction and Performance: A Guide for Human
Resource Professionals. New York: Quorum Books.
Buchanan, D. A. (1979). The Development of Job Design Theories and Techniques. London:
Routledge.
Buczynski, R. & Buchanan, M. (1991). Human Resource Management. New York: Marrow.
Bunker, D. R. & Wijnberg, M. (1995). Administration in Social Work. New York: Haworth
Press.
Burns, A.C and Bush, R.F (1998). Marketing Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Burn, B. E. (2000). Assessment A to Z: A Collection of 50 Questionnaire, Instruments and
Inventories. San Francisco: Jassey Bass.
Carr, M.J; Schmidt, W.T; Ford, A.M and DeShon, D.J (2003). Job Satisfaction:A MetaAnalysis of Stabilities. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 22(3)483-504.
Carrell, M. R.; Elbert, N. F., Hatfield, R. D.; Grobler, P. A.; Max, M. & Van der Schyft.
(1998). Human Resource Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, B (1973). Job Satisfaction: A review of the Literature, NY: New York State School
of Industrial and Labour Relations, Cornell University.
Chan, O.B(2008). Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers Job Satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 53(7) 39-52.
Cherniss, C. (1990). Staff Burnout: Job Stress in Human Services, Beverly Hills: Sage.
157
Cherniss, C. (1999). Beyond Burnout: Helping Teachers, Nurses, Therapists and Lawyers
Recover from Stress and Disillusionment. New York: Routledge.
Chess, P & Kunkel, P. (1986). Human Resource Planning, Employment and Placement. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, L. B. (1997). Experimental Methodology. Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Chung, K. H. (1997). Motivational Theories and Practices. Columbia: Amacom.
Churchill, G.A ; Ford, N.M and Walker, D.C. (1994): Measuring the Job Satisfaction of
Industrial Salesmen. Journal of Marketing Research. 11, 254-260.
Clerke, D. (1998). Management, Boston: Irwin.
Cockburn, D. and Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: Understanding Why
Teachers Teach, London: Routledge Falmer.
Cockburn, N. and Perry, D. (2004). Human Resources Management. Orlando: F. L. Dryden.
Cooper, D and Schinder, P. (2006). Business Research Methods. 8th edition. New York.
McGrawHill.
Cropanzano, R & James, K (1990). Some Methodological Considerations for the Behavior
Genetic Analysis of Work Attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology. 75, 433-439.
Daniels, B. (2001). The Wellness Payoff. New York: Wiley.
Daniel, C and Terrel, D. (2006). Business Statistics. New York: Prentice Hall.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Management, New York: The Dryden Press. 5th Edition.
Daver, R. S. (1992). The Human Side of Management, New Delhi: Universal Books. 2nd
Edition.
Davis-Blake, A and Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a Mirage. The Search for Dispositional Effects in
Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400.
Delery, R.Y and Doty, D.O (2006). Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement and Perceived
Organisational Climate Among the Assistants and Lower Managerial Personnel of
Government Organisation. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology. 24(2) 58-64.
De Mose, Z. (1995). Managing for Success. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Denisson, D.R(2006). Organisational Culture: Can it be a key Lever for Driving
Organisational Change? The International Handbook of Organisational Culture and
Climate. 4(2). 347-372.
158
Denizer, D.(2008). Accidents at Work and Work Related Health Problems by Sex, Status,
Age and Severity. Journal of Health Management. 26(2), 721-760.
Dibbie, S. (1999). Keeping Your Valuable Employees: Retention Strategies for your
Organizations Most Important Resource, New York: Wiley.
Donaldson, L. (1980). Behavioural Supervision: Practical Ways to Change Unsatisfactory
Behaviour and Increase Productivity. London: Addison Wesley. 1st Edition.
Doty, D.O; Glick, O.J and Huber, U.U(2003). A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction in
the Post- Liberalization Scenario Among Executives of Private and Public Sector
Organisations. Indian Management Studies Journal. 7(3). 21-31.
Downey, H. K., D. Hellriegel, M. Phelps, and J. W. Slocum. (1974). Organizational Climate
and Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis, Journal of Business Research. Vol. 2,
pp. 233-248.
Downey, H. K., D. Hellriegel, and J. W. Slocum. (1975). Congruence Between Individual
Needs, Organizational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Performance, Academy of
Management Journal. Vol. 18, pp. 179-155.
Drevets , W.C & Raichle, M.E (1998). Reciprocal Suppression of Regional Cerebral Blood
Flow During Emotional Versus Higher Cognitive Processes: Implications for
Interactions Between Emotion and Cognition, Cognition and Emotion. 12, 353- 385.
Dubinsky, S. J. (2004). High Performers: Recruiting and Retaining Top Employees. Mason,
OH: Thomson South-Western.
Dubinsky, R. (2004). Human Resources Management. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
6th Edition.
Du Brin, A. J. (1987). The Practice of Supervision: Achieving Results Through People. New
York: Macmillan. 2nd Edition.
Du Tait, S. C. (1994). Management Factors which Affect the Job Satisfaction of Black
Female Teachers. Unpublished M.Ed Dissertation. Patchefstroom: Patchefstroom
University of Christian Higher Education.
Edelwich, J. (1980). Burnout Stages of Disillusionment in the Helping Professions. New
York: Human Sciences Press.
Edem, U.S and Lawal,O.O. (2006). Job Satisfaction and Publication Output Among
Librarians in Nigeria Universities. Library Management. 20(2). 39-46.
159
Paper Presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Gaives, J. & Jermier, J. M. (1983). Emotional Exhaustion, in a High Stress Organization
.Academic of Management Journal, 7(26), 567 - 586
Gaziel, H. H. & Maslovaty, N. (1998). Predictors of Job Satisfaction among Teachers in
Religious Schools. Education and Society, 16(2), 47 56.
Gberevbie, D.E.I (2006) Recruitment and Quality Academic Staff Selection: The case study
of Covenant University. Ife PsycholoGia. 14(2), p.118.
Gellatly, I.R (2005). Individual and Group Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: A Test
of a Causal Model. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 16(1). 469-485.
Georgopoulus, B. S.; Mahoney, G. M. and Joney, N. W. (1978). A Path Goal Approach to
Productivity, Journal of Applied Psychology. 3(41), 342 353.
Gerber, P. D.; Nel, P. & Van Dyk, P. S. (1998). Human Resource Management.
Johannesburg: International Thompson Publishing.
Gerhart, B. (1987). How Important are Dispositional Factors as Determinants of Job
Satisfaction? Implications for Job Design and other Personnel Programs. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 72, 366- 373
Gibson, J. L.; Ivancevich, J. M. and Donnelly, J. H. (1997). Organizations Behaviour
Structure Processes. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 9th Edition
Gilbert, M. M. (1979). Understanding Job Satisfaction. London: Macmillan.
Gillies, A.L. (1982). A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-level Relationships
between Organization and Group-level Climates. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90:616628.
Gioia, J; Thomas, U; Clark, W and Chittipeddi, M(2004). Perceived Safety Climate, Job
Demands and Co-workers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 38(22) 497-522.
Givelch, W, H. & Burns, J. S. (1994). Sources of Stress for Academic Department
Chairpersons. Journal of Educational Administration. 32(1), 94.
Glick, W.H; Jenkins, G.D and Gupta, N. (1986). Method Versus Substance: How Strong are
Under-lying Relationships Between Job Characteristics and Attitudinal Outcomes?
Academy of Management Journal. 29, 441-464.
161
162
Hackman, J.R and Lawler, E.E (1971). Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology; 55, 259-286.
Haldane, B. (1974). Career Satisfaction and Success: A Guide to Job Freedom. New York:
Amacom.
Hackman,J.R and Lawler,E.E. (1981). Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 55, 259-286.
Hellriegel,D and Slocum, J.W.(1984). Organizational Climate: Measures, Research and
Contingencies. Academy of Management Journal. 17, 255-280.
Halloram, J. & Brenton, D. (1987). Applied Human Relations and Organizational Approach.
USA: Prentice Hall. 3rd Edition.
Harris, J. (1999). Finding and Keeping Great Employees. New York: Amecom.
Herman, M.N; Dunham, U.C and Hulin, H.N (2005). The Effect of Organisational Structure
on Employee Participation, Cooperation, Conformity and Commitment in School of
Organisations. Africa Journal of Educational Management. 1(1) 36-52.
Herzberg, F. & Grigaliuma, B. J. (1971). Relevancy in the Test of Motivator Hygiene
Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 55(1), 73 79.
Herzberg, F. (1967). Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland, OH: World Book.
Hickson, C and Oshagbemi, T. (1999). The Effect of Age on Satisfaction of Academics with
Teaching and Research. International Journal of Social Economics. 26(5). 537-544.
Hill, T. (1994). Primary Head Teacher, Their Job Satisfaction and Future Career
Aspirations. Educational Research. 36(3); 223 234.
Hoppock , R. (1935) . Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Row.
Hulin, C.L (1991). Adaptation, Persistence and Commitment in Organizations. In M.D.
Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. 2, 445-505. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting psychologists press.
Hulin, C.L; Roznowski, M & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative Opportunities and
Withdrawal Decisions: Empirical and Theoretical Discrepancies and an Integration.
Psychological Bulletin. 97, 251-273
Hulin, C.L & Smith, P.C (1967). An Empirical Investigation of Two Implications of the
Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51, 396 402.
163
Ichniowski, J.J; Shaw, P.J and Prennushi, S.P (2007). Organisational Climate and Company
Productivity: The Role of the Employee Affect and Employee Level. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 12(23) 891-920.
Ivancevich, J. N. & Donnelly, M. T. (1997). Organizational Behaviour and Management.
Chicago: Irwin. 4th Edition.
Iverson, R.D and Deery, M.(2007). Turnover Culture in the Hospitality Industry. Human
Resource Journal. 7(4), 71-82.
James, L.R and Jones, A.P (1980). Perceived Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: An
Examination of Reciprocal Causation. Personnel Psychology. 33, 97-135.
James, J.R and Tetrick, L.E (1986). Confirmatory Analytic Tests of Three Causal Models
Relating job Perceptions to Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71, 7782.
James, L.R and Jones, A.P (1984). Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and
Research. Psychological Bulletin. 81, 1096 1112.
James, O.J and James, O.P(2004). The Meaning of Organisations: The Role of Cognition and
Values. Organisational Climate and Culture. 5(2). 40-84.
James,O.P and Tetrick, R.D (2006). Perceived Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction
Among Men and Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 5(2). 451-470.
James, O.J (2004). The Effects of Organisational Climate on Managerial Job Performance
and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance.
9(10) 126-146.
James, O.P; Joyce,O.U and Slocum, P.E (2008).A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships
Between Individual Performance. Academy of Review. 9(2) 11-18.
James,L.R and Jones, A.P(2004).OrganisationalClimate: A Review of Structural Dimensions
and their Conceptual Relationship with Individual Attitudes and Behaviour. Jounal of
Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 15(6) 44-62.
Johannesson, R.E. (1983). Some Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Climate.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. 10, 118-144.
Johnson, M.T and McIntye, T.N (2008).Conceptualising and Measuring Organisational and
Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research. Academy of Management
Review. 10(3) 601-616.
164
Joyce, O.U and Slocum, J.W. (2004). Collective Climate: Agreement as a Basis for Defining
Aggregate Climates in Organisations. Academy of Management Journal. 27(6) 721742.
Judge, T.; Bona, J.; Thoresen, C. and Patton, G. (2001). The Job Satisfaction Job
Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(4), 376 407.
Judge, T.A & Hulin, C.I(1993). Job Satisfaction as a Reflection of Disposition: A MultipleSource Causal Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
56, 388-421
Judge, T.A; Locke, E.A & Durham, C.C. (1997). The Dispositional Causes of Job
Satisfaction: A Core Evaluation Approach. Research in Organizational Behaviour.
19, 151-188
Judge, T.A.(1990). Job Satisfaction as a Reflection of Disposition: Investigating the
Relationship and its Effects on Employee Adaptive Behaviours. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Illinois.
Judge, T. A. and Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of Dysfunctional Thought Processes on
Subjective Well-being and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78, 475490.
Jurgensen, C.E. (1978). Job Preferences (What Makes a Job Good or Bad?). Journal of
Applied Psychology. 50, 479-487
Kaczka, E and Kirk, R (1978). Managerial Climate, Work Groups and Organizational
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12, 252-271.
Kadushin, G. and Egan, M. (2001). Ethical Dilemmas in Home Health Care: A Social Work
Perspective. Health and Social Work, 26, 136 146.
Kahn, R.L; Wolfe, D; Quinn, R; Snoeck, J and Rosenthal, R. (1984). Organizational Stress.
New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Katz, A.U and Kahn, J.K (2004). Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Conceptual
Synthesis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 16(2). 4562.
Kestetner, J. (1994). New Teacher Induction. Findings of the Research and Implications for
Minority Groups. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(1), 39-45.
165
Mcfarland, J & Morris, M.U. (1984). Linking Service Climate and Customer Perceptions of
Service Quality: Tests of a Causal Model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83(140-154).
McGregor, D.M. (1966) .Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA : MIT press.
McGregor, D.M (2000). A Note on Organisational Climate. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Performance. 16(2). 250-279.
McMahan-Landers, I.J (2003). Strategies for Improving the Quality of Part-Time Teacher
Programme in Colleges of Education in Oshodi. Teacher Programme in Colleges of
Education in Nigeria. Benin City. Uniben Press.
McNeese- Smith, D.K. (1999). A Content Analysis of Staff Nurse Description of Job
Satisfaction. A Journal of Advance Nursing. 29(6), 1332- 1341.
Merton, M.T and Kitt, K.N (2005). A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-level
Relationships Between Organisation and Group-level Climates. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 90(16) 616-638.
Meyer, S.H; Tsui, A.J and Hinnings, O.Y(2003). Job Satisfaction as Related to
Organisational Climate Among Bank Officers. Paper Presented in 4th International and
35th IAAP Conference at Anand (Gujarat). May27-29.
Morgeson, M.O and Hofmann, I.J (2009). Climate as a Moderator of the Relationship
Between Leader-Member Exchange and Content Specific Citizenship: Safety Climate
as an Exempler. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(26) 170-198.
Mondy, R. W. & Premeaux, S. R. (1995). Management Concepts, Practice and Skills.
Eaglewood: Prentice-Hall. 7th Edition.
Moorhead, G. and Griffin. W. (1998). Managing People and Organizations: Organizational
Behaviour. Boston: Mifflin. 5th Edition.
Morrison, M. (1993). Professional Skills for Leadership: Foundations of a Successful
Career. London: Mosby.
Mullins, L.J. (1999). Management and Organizational Behaviour. England. Pearson
Education Limited. 5th Edition.
Narver, J.C & Slater, S. F (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business
Profitability. Journal of Marketing 54(10), 20- 35.
Naumann, B.N and Bennet, A.P (2000). Organisational Size and Workers Attitude to Work.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 17(2).10-23.
169
Ostroff, O.R; Kinicki, S.N and Tamkins, U.O (2007). Relationships Between Psychological
Climate Perceptions and Work Outcomes: A Meta- Analytic Review. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour. 24(4) 389-416.
Otokiti, S.O. (2005). Methodologies and Mechanics of Computational System. New Delhi:
Sultan Chand and Son.
Parker, M.P; Ubom, I.U and Joshua, M.T (2008). Needs Satisfaction Variables as Predictors
of Job Satisfaction of Employees:Implication for Guidance and Counselling.
Educational Research Journal. 4(3). 397-427.
Payne, R.L; Fineman, S and Wall, T.D (1986). Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction:
A Conceptual Synthesis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. 16,
45-62.
Payne, R.L (2000). Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Conceptual Synthesis,
Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. Asian Journal of Applied
Sciences. 16(8) 1094-1099.
Payne, I.J (2000). The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes and Performance: An
Organisational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 27(22) 963-984.
Payne, R..L and Morrison, D (2002). The Differential Effects of Negative Affectivity on
Measures of Well-Being Versus Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 24(3), 415-432.
Payne,I.J and Mansfield, A.A (2003). Managerial Climate, Work Groups and Organisational
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12(2) 253-272.
Patterson, P.M; Payne, I.J and West, I.U(2006). Climate and Culture: An Evaluation of
Constructs. Creativity Research Journal. 16(1) 119-140.
Peterson, W. (1995). The Effect of Organizational Design on Group Cohesion Power,
Utilization and Organizational Climate. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
Polit, D. F. and Hungler, B. P. (1991). Essentials of Nursing Research Methods, Appraisal
and Utilization. Philadelphia: Lipincot. 4th Edition.
Pritchard, R and Karasick, B (1993). The Effects of Organizational Climate on Managerial
Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance. 9, 110-119.
171
R& Schoenpflug,
of
Siefert, K.; Jayaratne, S. and Chess, W. (1991). Job Satisfaction, Burnout and Turnover in
Health Care Social Workers. Health and Social Work. 3(6), 193 202.
Silver, P. T.; Poulin, J. E. and Menning, R, C. (1997). Surviving the Bureaucracy: The
Predictors of Job Satisfaction for the Public. Agency Supervision. Vol. 15(1).
Smith- Lovin, L (1991). An Affect control view of cognition and emotion. In J.A
Howard, & P.L. Callero (eds). The Self- Society Dynamic: Cognition, Emotion and
Action (pp.143-169) New York : Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P.C ; Kendall, L.M &Hulin, C.L (1969).The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work
and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Smith, P. C. (1992). Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How it Affects
their Performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Smith, P.C ; Kendall, L.M and Hulin, C.L (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work
and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. The Handbook of Psychology
( 2nd Ed.) pp. 406-417. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Smith- Lovin, L (1991). An Affect Control View of Cognition and Emotion. In J. A
Howard, & P.L. Callero (eds). The Self- Society Dynamic: Cognition, Emotion and
Action (pp.143-169) New York : Cambridge University Press.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Startup ,R ,Gruneberg , M. M and Tapfield , P(1975). The Satisfaction of University Staff
with their Teaching. Research in Education 13: 57-66.
Startup, R and Gruneberg , M. M (1976) The Rewards of Research . New Universities
Quarterly, 227-238.
Staw, B.M Bell, N.E & Clause, J.A (1986). The Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: A
Lifetime Longitudinal Test. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31, 437-453.
Staw, B.M & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the Midst of Change. A Dispositional Approach to
Job Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 70, 469-480.
Steyn, G. M. & Van Wyk, J. N. (1999). Job Satisfaction. Perceptions of the Principals and
Teachers in Urban Black Schools in South Africa. South African Journal of
Education. 19(1), 37 43.
174
Stone, E.F. (1992). A Critical Analysis of Social Information Processing Models of Job
Perceptions and Job Attitudes. In J. Cranny, P. Smith & E.F. Stone (Eds). Job
Satisfaction: How People Feel About their Jobs and How it Affects their Performance.
New York: Lexington Books. 165-194.
Sweeny,
D.B.(2002).
New
176
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu Saad, T. and Hendrix, V. L. (1995). Organizational Climate and Teachers Job
Satisfaction in a Multi-Cultural Milieu: The Case of the Bedouin Arab Schools in
Israel. Education Development, 15(2), 141 153.
Adedayo, O. A. (2006). Understanding Statistics. Lagos: JAS Publisher.
Adigun, I.O & Stephenson, G.M (1992). Source of Job Motivation and Satisfaction Among
British and Nigerian Samples. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 369 -376.
Agho, A.O, Mueller, C.W and Price, J.L (1993). Determinants of Employee Job
Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. Human Relations. 46, 1007-1027
Alderfer, P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance 10(6), 142 175.
Angerer, W. (2003). Successful Human Resource Management. Boston: Irwin.
Armstrong, M. (1993). A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice, London: Kogan
Page 4th Edition.
Arnold, H.J & House, R.J(1980). Methodological and Substantive Extensions to the Job
Characteristics Model of Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 25, 161-183.
Arvey, R.D; Bouchard, T.J; Segal, N.l & Abraham, I.M (1989). Job Satisfaction:
Environmental and Genetic Components. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74, 187-192
Asika, N. (2000). Research Methodology in the Behavioural Science. Ikeja: Longman.
Banjoko, S.A (2006). Managing Corporate Reward Systems. Lagos: Pumark Educational
Publishers.
Barbie, E. (1989). Survey Research Methods, California: Wadeswirth Publishing Company,
2nd, Edition.
Baron, R (1996). Behaviour in Organizations. Newton: Allyn and Bacon.
Brabson, H. Jones, C. and Jayaratne, S. (1991). Perceptions of Emotional Support, Stress
and Strain among AfricanAmerican Human Service Workers. Journal of MultiCultural Social Work. 1, 77 101.
Bantam, J & Murphy, K. (1993). Employee Job Satisfaction, London: Routledge.
Bawn, R. A & Greenberg, J. (1986). Behaviour in Organizations: Understanding and
Managing the Human Side of Work. London: Allyn & Bacon. 2nd Edition.
177
178
Brief , A.P & Roberson , L (1999) . Job Attitude Organization. An exploratory study
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(2), 717-727.
Brink, H. I. (1996). Foundations of Research Methodology. Kenwyn: Juta.
Bruce, W. M. (1992). Balancing Job Satisfaction and Performance: A Guide for Human
Resource Professionals. New York: Quorum Books.
Buchanan, D. A. (1979). The Development of Job Design Theories and Techniques. London:
Routledge.
Buczynski, R. & Buchanan, M. (1991). Human Resource Management. New York: Marrow.
Bunker, D. R. & Wijnberg, M. (1995). Administration in Social Work. New York: Haworth
Press.
Burns, A.C and Bush, R.F (1998). Marketing Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Burn, B. E. (2000). Assessment A to Z: A Collection of 50 Questionnaire, Instruments and
Inventories. San Francisco: Jassey Bass.
Carr, M.J; Schmidt, W.T; Ford, A.M and DeShon, D.J (2003). Job Satisfaction:A MetaAnalysis of Stabilities. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 22(3)483-504.
Carrell, M. R.; Elbert, N. F., Hatfield, R. D.; Grobler, P. A.; Max, M. & Van der Schyft.
(1998). Human Resource Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, B (1973). Job Satisfaction: A review of the Literature, NY: New York State School
of Industrial and Labour Relations, Cornell University.
Chan, O.B(2008). Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers Job Satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 53(7) 39-52.
Cherniss, C. (1990). Staff Burnout: Job Stress in Human Services, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cherniss, C. (1999). Beyond Burnout: Helping Teachers, Nurses, Therapists and Lawyers
Recover from Stress and Disillusionment. New York: Routledge.
Chess, P & Kunkel, P. (1986). Human Resource Planning, Employment and Placement. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, L. B. (1997). Experimental Methodology. Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Chung, K. H. (1997). Motivational Theories and Practices. Columbia: Amacom.
Churchill, G.A ; Ford, N.M and Walker, D.C. (1994): Measuring the Job Satisfaction of
Industrial Salesmen. Journal of Marketing Research. 11, 254-260.
Clerke, D. (1998). Management, Boston: Irwin.
179
Cockburn, D. and Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: Understanding Why
Teachers Teach, London: Routledge Falmer.
Cockburn, N. and Perry, D. (2004). Human Resources Management. Orlando: F. L. Dryden.
Cooper, D and Schinder, P. (2006). Business Research Methods. New York. McGrawHill.
8th edition.
Cropanzano, R & James, K (1990). Some Methodological Considerations for the Behavior
Genetic Analysis of Work Attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology. 75, 433-439.
Daniels, B. (2001). The Wellness Payoff. New York: Wiley.
Daniel, C and Terrel, D. (2006). Business Statistics. New York: Prentice Hall.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Management, New York: The Dryden Press. 5th Edition.
Daver, R. S. (1992). The Human Side of Management, New Delhi: Universal Books. 2nd
Edition.
Davis-Blake, A and Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a Mirage. The Search for Dispositional Effects in
Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400.
Delery, R.Y and Doty, D.O(2006). Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement and Perceived
Organisational Climate Among the Assistants and Lower Managerial Personnel of
Government Organisation. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology. 24(2) 58-64.
De Mose, Z. (1995). Managing for Success. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Denisson, D.R(2006). Organisational Culture: Can it be a key Lever for Driving
Organisational Change? The International Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate.
4(2). 347-372.
Denizer, D.(2008). Accidents at Work and Work Related Health Problems by Sex, Status,
Age and Severity. Journal of Health Management. 26(2), 721-760.
Dibbie, S. (1999). Keeping Your Valuable Employees: Retention Strategies for your
Organizations Most Important Resource, New York: Wiley.
Donaldson, L. (1980). Behavioural Supervision: Practical Ways to Change Unsatisfactory
Behaviour and Increase Productivity. London: Addison Wesley. 1st Edition.
Doty, D.O; Glick, O.J and Huber, U.U(2003). A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction in
the Post- Liberalization Scenario Among Executives of Private and Public Sector
Organisations. Indian Management Studies Journal. 7(3). 21-31.
180
181
Fajana, Sola (2001). The Nigerian Informal Sector: Freeing The Hidden Potential and
Raising Standards. Poster Session Paper Submitted to The Global Employment Forum,
Geneva.
Fajana, Sola (2002). Human Resource Management: An Introduction. Lagos: Labofin and
Company.
Fletcher, C and Williams, R. (2006). Performance Management, Job Satisfaction and
Organisational Commitment. British Journal of Management. 7(2), 169-179.
Flippo, E. B. (1984). Personnel Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. 6th Edition. Ford, R.
N. (1982). Motivation Through Work Itself. New York: American Management
Association. 2nd Edition.
Fourie, F. (2004). Work Motivation. Amsterdam: Free Press.
Friedlander, F and Margulies, N. (1999). Multiple Impacts of Organizational Climate and
Industrial Value Systems Upon Job Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology. 22, 171-183.
Fields, D and Blum, T (1997). Employee Satisfaction in Work Groups with Different
Gender Composition. Journal of organizational Behavior. 18, 181-196.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1980). The Staff Burnout Syndrome in Alternative Institutions.
Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice, 12(12), 72 83.
Fried, Y & ferris, G.R. (1987). The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A Review
and Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology. 40, 287-322.
Frye, C.M (1996). New Evidence for the Job Characteristics Model: A Meta-Analysis of
the Job CharacteristicsJob Satisfaction Relationship Using Composite Correlations.
Paper Presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Gaives, J. & Jermier, J. M. (1983). Emotional Exhaustion, in a High Stress Organization
.Academic of Management Journal, 7(26), 567 - 586
Gaziel, H. H. & Maslovaty, N. (1998). Predictors of Job Satisfaction among Teachers in
Religious Schools. Education and Society, 16(2), 47 56.
Gberevbie, D.E.I (2006) Recruitment and Quality Academic Staff Selection: The case study
of Covenant University. Ife PsycholoGia. 14(2), p.118.
Gellatly, I.R (2005). Individual and Group Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: A Test
of a Causal Model. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 16(1). 469-485.
182
183
Gruneberg , M.M ; Startup, R and Tapfield, P (1976). The Effect of Geographical Factors
on the Job Satisfaction of University Teachers. Vocational Aspect of Education 26:
25-29.
Gruneberg, M.M and Startup, R ( 1978). The Job Satisfaction of University Teachers.
Vocational Aspect of Education. 30 :75-79
Guion, R.M (1973). A Note on Organizational Climate. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Performance. 9, 185- 195.
Gutek, B.A & Winter, S. J. (1992). Consistency of Job Satisfaction Across Situations: Fact
or Framing Artifact? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 41, 67-78
Hackman, J.R and Oldham, G.R (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work. Test of a
Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16, 250-279.
Hackman, J.R and Lawler, E.E (1971). Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology; 55, 259-286.
Haldane, B. (1974). Career Satisfaction and Success: A Guide to Job Freedom. New York:
Amacom.
Hackman,J.R and Lawler,E.E. (1981). Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 55, 259-286.
Hellriegel,D and Slocum, J.W.(1984). Organizational Climate: Measures, Research and
Contingencies. Academy of Management Journal. 17, 255-280.
Halloram, J. & Brenton, D. (1987). Applied Human Relations and Organizational Approach.
USA: Prentice Hall. 3rd Edition.
Harris, J. (1999). Finding and Keeping Great Employees. New York: Amecom.
Herman, M.N; Dunham, U.C and Hulin, H.N (2005). The Effect of Organisational Structure
on Employee Participation, Cooperation, Conformity and Commitment in School of
Organisations. Africa Journal of Educational Management. 1(1) 36-52.
Herzberg, F. & Grigaliuma, B. J. (1971). Relevancy in the Test of Motivator Hygiene
Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 55(1), 73 79.
Herzberg, F. (1967). Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland: OH. World Book.
Hickson, C and Oshagbemi, T. (1999). The Effect of Age on Satisfaction of Academics with
Teaching and Research. International Journal of Social Economics. 26(5). 537-544.
184
Hill, T. (1994). Primary Head Teacher, Their Job Satisfaction and Future Career
Aspirations. Educational Research. 36(3); 223 234.
Hoppock , R. (1935) . Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Row.
Hulin, C.L (1991). Adaptation, Persistence and Commitment in Organizations. In M.D.
Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. 2, 445-505. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting psychologists press.
Hulin, C.L; Roznowski, M & Hachiya, D. (19850. Alternative Opportunities and
Withdrawal Decisions: Empirical and Theoretical Discrepancies and an Integration.
Psychological Bulletin. 97, 251-273
Hulin, C.L & Smith, P.C (1967). An Empirical Investigation of Two Implications of the
Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51, 396 -402.
Ichniowski, J.J; Shaw, P.J and Prennushi, S.P (2007). Organisational Climate AND
Company Productivity: The Role of the Employee Affect and Employee Level.
Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 12(23) 891-920.
Ivancevich, J. N. & Donnelly, M. T. (1997). Organizational Behaviour and Management.
Chicago: Irwin. 4th Edition.
Iverson, R.D and Deery, M.(2007). Turnover Culture in the Hospitality Industry. Human
Resource Journal. 7(4), 71-82.
James, L.R and Jones, A.P (1980). Perceived Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: An
Examination of Reciprocal Causation. Personnel Psychology. 33, 97-135.
James, J.R and Tetrick, L.E (1986). Confirmatory Analytic Tests of Three Causal Models
Relating job Perceptions to Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71, 7782.
James, L.R and Jones, A.P (1984). Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and
Research. Psychological Bulletin. 81, 1096 1112.
James, O.J and James, O.P(2004). The Meaning of Organisations: The Role of Cognition and
Values. Organisational Climate and Culture. 5(2). 40-84.
James,O.P and Tetrick, R.D (2006). Perceived Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction
Among Men and Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 5(2). 451-470.
James, O.P (2004). The Effects of Organisational Climate on Managerial Job Performance
185
186
Jurgensen, C.E. (1978). Job Preferences (What Makes a Job Good or Bad?). Journal of
Applied Psychology. 50, 479-487
Kaczka, E and Kirk, R (1978). Managerial Climate, Work Groups and Organizational
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12, 252-271.
Kadushin, G. and Egan, M. (2001). Ethical Dilemmas in Home Health Care: A Social Work
Perspective. Health and Social Work, 26, 136 146.
Kahn, R.L; Wolfe, D; Quinn, R; Snoeck, J and Rosenthal, R. (1984). Organizational Stress.
New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Katz, A.U and Kahn, J.K (2004). Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Conceptual
Synthesis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 16(2). 4562.
Kestetner, J. (1994). New Teacher Induction. Findings of the Research and Implications for
Minority Groups. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(1), 39-45.
Keuter, K; Byrne, E; Voell, J. & Larson, E. (2000).Human Resource Measurement: A
Challenge for Accountants. Applied Academics Research 13(1), 46-49.
Klecker, B and Loadman, W. (1999). Male Elementary School Teachers Ratings of Job
Satisfaction by Years of Teaching Experience. Research in Education. 119,504-513.
Klein, U.E; Cook,J and Wall, T.D. (2000). New Work Attitudes, Measures of Trust,
Organisational Commitment and Personal Need Non- Fulfilment. Journal of
Educational Research. 93(1) 39-58.
Klein, O.O;Conn, I.U; Smith, A.P and Sorra, S.I (2007). Decision Participation and School
Climate as Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Teachers Sense. Journal of Experimental
Education. 63(3) 217-231.
Kniveton, B. (1991). An Investigation of Factors Contributing to Teachers Job
Satisfaction. School Psychology International, 12, 361 370.
Koeske, G. & Koeske, R. (1993). A Preliminary Test of Stress-Strain-Outcome Model for
Reconceptualizing the Burnout Phenomenon. Journal of Social Service Research.
17(5), 107 131.
Kopelman, M.L; Brief, E.F and Guzzo, R.T (2000). Congruence Between Individual Needs,
Organisational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Performance. Academy of Management
Journal. 18(3) 149-165.
187
Korman, A.K (1971). Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs. N.J:
Prentice Hall.
Kozlowski, P.Z and Klein, U.E (2000). Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: When cause
becomes Consequence. Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision
Process. 35(17). 266-288.
Lafollette, W. R., and H. P. Sims. (1975). Is Satisfaction Redundant with Organizational
Climate? Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 13, pp. 257-278.
Lambert, E.G; Pasupuleti,S; Cluse-Tolar,T and Jennings, M (2008). The Impact of WorkFamily Conflict on Social Work and Human Service Worker Job Satisfaction and
Organisational Commitment: An Exploratory Study. Administration in Social Work.
30(5) 55-74.
Lawler, E.E., and D. T. Hall, and G. R. Oldham (1994). Organizational Climate:
Relationship to Organizational Structure, Process, and Performance, Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 11, pp. 139-155.
Leiter, M. P. and Maslach, C. (1988). The Impact of Interpersonal Environment on Burnout
and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 4(9), 297
308.
Lemker, E & Wiersma, W. (1976). Principles of Psychological Measurement. Chicago: Rend
McNally College Publishing Company.
Levin, I & Stokes, J.P (1989). Dispositional Approach to Job Satisfaction: Role of Negative
Affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74, 752-758.
Lewin, W.J; Lippit, T.P AND White, M.P(1999). Goal Orientation, Self-efficacy,
Organisational Climate and Job Performance. Academy of Management. 11(3) 241263.
Liao, J.J and Chuag, C.G (2004). Experience of Stress: Differences Between College
Teachers and Executives. Journal of Psychological Studies. 44(3) 65-69.
Likert, R (1967). The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R(1997). Organisational Climate: Relationship to Organisational Structure, Process
and Performance. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. 11(4) 139-155.
Lindell, J.G and Brandt, W.Y (2000). Teacher Job Satisfaction and Job Stress-school size,
age,and teaching experience. Journal of Education. 112(2) 267-278.
188
Litwin, G. H., and R. A. Stringer. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate, Boston:
Harvard University.
Litwin, G and Stringer, R (1978). Motivation and Organizational Climate. Cambridge:
Harvard University, Press.
Lobiando-Wood, G. and Haber, J. (1994). Research Methods, Critical Appraisal and
Utilization. London: Mosby. 3rd Edition.
Lockburn, E & Terry, P (2004). Organizational Behaviour. London: Juta.
Locke, E.A (1976) The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M.D Dunnette (Ed),
Handbook of Industrial and organizational Psychology.
Locke, E.A (1969) What is Job Satisfaction? Organizational Behaviour and Human
PerformanceJournal of Applied Psychology. 4, 309-336.
Loher, B.T; Noe, R.A; Moeller, N.L & Fitzgerald, M.P (1985). A Meta-Analysis of the
Relation of Job Characteristics to Job Satisfaction Journal of Applied Psychology. 70,
280-289.
Low, D.A.(1997). Human Development. Pretoria: Kagiso.
Lum, L.K.(2006). Explaining Nursing Turnover Intent: Job Satisfaction or Organisational
Commitment. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 19(6), 305-320.
Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational Behaviour. Chicago: Mosby. 8th Edition.
Ma, X. & Macmillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers Job
Satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research. 93(1), 39 47.
Mathieu, K.U and Kohler, S.O (2000). The Differential Effects of Negative Affectivity on
Measures of Well-Being Versus Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment,
Anxiety, Stress and Coping. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 15(3). 231-244.
Maghradi , A. (1999) Assessing the Effect of Job Satisfaction on Managers. .Intl. J. Value
Based Management, 12: 1-2
Manthei, R. & Gilmore, A. (1996). Teacher Stress in Intermediate Schools. Educational
Research. 38(1), 3 17.
Marriner-Tomey, A. (1996). Guide to Nursing Management and Leadership. Chicago:
Mosby. 5th Edition.
Marriner-Tomey, A. (2000). Guide to Nursing Management and Leadership. Chicago:
Mosby. 6th Edition.
189
Martin, U. & Schinke, S. (1998). Organizational and Individual Factors Influencing Job
Satisfaction and Burnout of Mental Health Workers. Social Work in Health Care,
28(3), 51 62.
Maslow, A.H. (1965) Eupsychian Management. Homewood, IL: Irwin
Mcfarland,J & Morris, M.U. (1984). Linking Service Climate and Customer Perceptions of
Service Quality: Tests of a Causal Model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83(140-154).
McGregor, D.M. (1966) .Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA : MIT press.
McGregor, D.M (2000). A Note on Organisational Climate. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Performance. 16(2). 250-279.
McMahan-Landers, I.J (2003). Strategies for Improving the Quality of Part-Time Teacher
Programme in Colleges of Education in Oshodi. Teacher Programme in Colleges of
Education in Nigeria. Benin City. Uniben Press.
McNeese- Smith, D.K. (1999). A Content Analysis of Staff Nurse Description of Job
Satisfaction. A Journal of Advance Nursing. 29(6), 1332- 1341.
Merton, M.T and Kitt, K.N (2005). A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-level
Relationships Between Organisation and Group-level Climates. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 90(16) 616-638.
Meyer, S.H; Tsui, A.J and Hinnings, O.Y(2003). Job Satisfaction as Related to
Organisational Climate Among Bank Officers. Paper Presented in 4th International and
35th IAAP Conference at Anand (Gujarat). May27-29.
Morgeson, M.O and Hofmann, I.J (2009). Climate as a Moderator of the Relationship
Between Leader-Member Exchange and Content Specific Citizenship: Safety Climate
as an Exempler. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(26) 170-198.
Mondy, R. W. & Premeaux, S. R. (1995). Management Concepts, Practice and Skills.
Eaglewood: Prentice-Hall. 7th Edition.
Moorhead, G. and Griffin. W. (1998). Managing People and Organizations: Organizational
Behaviour. Boston: Mifflin. 5th Edition.
Morrison, M. (1993). Professional Skills for Leadership: Foundations of a Successful
Career. London: Mosby.
Mullins, L.J. (1999). Management and Organizational Behaviour. England. Pearson
Education Limited. 5th Edition.
190
Narver, J.C & Slater, S. F (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business
Profitability. Journal of Marketing 54(10), 20- 35.
Naumann, B.N and Bennet, A.P (2000). Organisational Size and Workers Attitude to Work.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 17(2).10-23.
Necowitz, L. B. and Roznowski, M. (1994). Negative Affectivity and Job Satisfaction:
Cognitive Process Underlying the Relationship and Effects on Employee Behaviours.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 45, 270-294.
Newsome, M. & Pillari, V. (1992). Job Satisfaction and the Worker-Supervisor
Relationship. Clinical Supervisor. 9(3), 119 129.
Newstrom, J. and Davis, K. (1997). Organizational Human Behaviour at Work. New York:
McGraw-Hill. 10th Edition.
Nicholson, E.A and Miljus, R.C (1992). Job Satisfaction and Turnover Among Liberal Arts
College Professors. Personnel Journal .51: 840-845.
Obisi,C (2003). Organizational Behaviour: Concepts and Applications. Lagos: Malthouse
Press Limited.
Olsen, D. (1993). Work Satisfaction and Stress in the First and Third Year of Academic
Appointment. Journal of Higher Education. 64(4), 453 471.
Organ, D.W & Near, J.P (1985). Cognition Vs Affect in Measures of Job Satisfaction,
International Journal of Psychology ,20, 241-253.
Oshagbemi .T. (1996) Job Satisfaction of UK Academics. Educational management and
Administration. 24, 389-400.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997).
Oshagbemi, T. (2000) . Is the length of service related to the level of Job Satisfaction.?
International Journal of Social Economics. 27, 213-226.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000) Gender Differences in the Job Satisfaction of University Teachers.
Women in Management Review. 15, 331-343.
Ostroff, O.R; Kinicki, S.N and Tamkins, U.O(2007). Relationships Between Psychological
Climate Perceptions and Work Outcomes: A Meta- Analytic Review. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour. 24(4) 389-416.
Otokiti, S.O. (2005). Methodologies and Mechanics of Computational System. New Delhi:
Sultan Chand and Son.
Parker, M.P; Ubom, I.U and Joshua, M.T (2008). Needs Satisfaction Variables as Predictors
of Job Satisfaction of Employees:Implication for Guidance and Counselling.
Educational Research Journal. 4(3). 397-427.
Payne, R.L; Fineman, S and Wall, T.D (1986). Organizational Climate and Job
Satisfaction: A Conceptual Synthesis. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance. 16, 45-62.
Payne, R.L (2000). Organisational Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Conceptual Synthesis,
Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences.
16(8) 1094-1099.
Payne, I.J (2000). The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes and Performance: An
Organisational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 27(22) 963-984.
Payne, R..L and Morrison, D (2002). The Differential Effects of Negative Affectivity on
Measures of Well-Being Versus Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 24(3), 415-432.
Payne,I.J and Mansfield, A.A (2003). Managerial Climate, Work Groups and Organisational
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12(2) 253-272.
Patterson, P.M; Payne, I.J and West, I.U(2006). Climate and Culture: An Evaluation of
Constructs. Creativity Research Journal. 16(1) 119-140.
Peterson, W. (1995). The Effect of Organizational Design on Group Cohesion Power,
Utilization and Organizational Climate. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
Polit, D. F. and Hungler, B. P. (1991). Essentials of Nursing Research Methods, Appraisal
and Utilization. Philadelphia: Lipincot. 4th Edition.
192
R& Schoenpflug,
of
193
Salkind, N. J. (2000). Exploring Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 4th Edition.
Sarker, A.H ; Crossman, A & Chinmetee Pituck, P.(2003).The Relationships of Age and
Length of Service with Job Satisfaction: An Examination of Hotel Employees in
Thailand. Managerial Psychology, 18, 745-758.
Schermerhorn, J.R; Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (1994). Management Organizational
Behaviour. Toronto: John Wiley & sons. 5th ed.
Schneider, B., and C. J. Barlette (1968). Individual Differences and Organizational Climate:
The Research Plan and Questionnaire Development, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 21,
pp. 323-333.
Schneider, B., and R. A. Snyder (1975). Some Relationships Between Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 318-328.
Siefert, K.; Jayaratne, S. and Chess, W. (1991). Job Satisfaction, Burnout and Turnover in
Health Care Social Workers. Health and Social Work. 3(6), 193 202.
Silver, P. T.; Poulin, J. E. and Menning, R, C. (1997). Surviving the Bureaucracy: The
Predictors of Job Satisfaction for the Public. Agency Supervision. Vol. 15(1).
Smith, P. C. (1992). Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How it Affects
their Performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Smith, P.C ; Kendall, L.M and Hulin, C.L (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work
and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. The Handbook of Psychology
( 2nd Ed.) pp. 406-417. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Smith- Lovin, L (1991). An Affect Control View of Cognition and Emotion. In J. A
Howard, & P.L. Callero (eds). The Self- Society Dynamic: Cognition, Emotion and
Action (pp.143-169) New York : Cambridge University Press.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Startup ,R ,Gruneberg , M. M and Tapfield , P(1975). The Satisfaction of University Staff
with their Teaching. Research in Education 13: 57-66.
Startup, R and Gruneberg , M. M (1976) The Rewards of Research . New Universities
Quarterl 14, 227-238.
Staw, B.M Bell, N.E & Clause, J.A (1986). The Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: A
Lifetime Longitudinal Test. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31, 437-453.
195
Staw, B.M & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the Midst of Change. A Dispositional Approach to
Job Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 70, 469-480.
Steyn, G. M. & Van Wyk, J. N. (1999). Job Satisfaction. Perceptions of the Principals and
Teachers in Urban Black Schools in South Africa. South African Journal of
Education. 19(1), 37 43.
Stone, E.F. (1992). A Critical Analysis of Social Information Processing Models of Job
Perceptions and Job Attitudes. In J. Cranny, P. Smith & E.F. Stone (Eds). Job
Satisfaction: How People Feel About their Jobs and How it Affects their Performance.
New York: Lexington Books. 165-194.
Sweeny, P.D and McFarlin, D.B. (2002). Organizational Behaviour: Solution for
Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Terre Blanche, M. & Durrheim, K. (1999). Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the
Social Sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
Terrel, A.D; Price, W.T and Joyner, R.L (2008). Job Satisfaction Among Community
College Occupational Technical Faculty Community. Journal of Applied Science.
22(1), 111-122.
Thennissen, J. M. (1994). The Connection Between Organizational Climates, Personnel
Development and Career Satisfaction among Teachers: An Educational Management
Perspective. PhD Thesis: Pretoria, University of Pretoria.
Thomson, S. (1997). Nurse Teachers as Researchers: A Reflective Approach. London:
Arnold.
Thoresen, C.J and Judge, T.A (1997). Trait Affectivity and Work Related Attitudes and
Behaviours: A Meta-Analysis. Paper Presentation at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association. Chicago: IL
Treece, E. W. and Treece, J. W. (1986). Elements of Research in Nursing. Toronto: Mosby.
4th Edition.
Udogo,U.J. (2008).Understanding Employee Commitment in the Public Organisation: A
Study of the Juvenile Detention Center. International Journal of Public
Administration. 18(8), 1269-1295.
196
197
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondent,
Yours faithfully,
198
QUESTIONNAIRE
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
SECTION A
Questions directed to Senior and Junior Academic Staff.
Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 5; If you Strongly Agree (SA), for instance, tick 5, or if you
Strongly Disagree (SD), please tick 1. We are interested in the number that best shows your views on
the expectation of the study.
Sn
STATEMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22.
23.
24.
(SD)
1
199
OPTIONS
(D) (U) (A)
2
3
4
(SA)
5
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
SECTION B
OPEN-ENDED QUESTION
Instruction: Please give precise answer to the following questions. You may give
practical examples where possible.
1.
Do you feel the University is doing enough to promote personal career
development?
2.
3.
Do you feel the University is doing enough to promote professional career
development?
4.
SECTION C
Respondent Bio Data:
Instruction: Please tick the appropriate answer in the box provided.
Female:
4. How many years have you spent lecturing in the university system generally?
(Write in years).
5. Age. 19-25
26-40
41-60
61 & Above
202