Abstract

Background: Job satisfaction has been regarded as a product of harmony of one’s positive individual attitudes toward his/her work and the compatibility of the individual with his/her duties and with the working conditions governing the job.

Job satisfaction has shown to affect productivity rate, personal output and their psychosomatic presence.

Objective: The current study has been launched to investigate the faculty members, satisfaction with various components of their academic career, such as nature of work salary, promotion, relations with the managers and colleagues.

Methods: To investigate the relationship between the individuals and various dimensions of job satisfaction, a standard self–administered questionnaire of J.D.I was distributed between 154 respondents. A total of 122 copies of the questionnaire were returned and analyzed.

Results : Distribution of the sample, on the basis of demographic variables of the participants were shown that, 82.1% of the subjects were men, 68.8% of them were over 45 years, 95.1% of the subjects were married, 82.8% of them were assistant professors and instructors and 60% of the subject were permanent official employees.

Conclusion:

The analysis of data showed that the respondent manifested the highest and the second highest level of satisfaction with the nature of their work and their colleagues respectively, whereas they showed to be least satisfied with their salaries and promotion policies.

There was a significant difference (P< .05) between the "geographic full- time" and" full- time " faculty members in terms of types of employment (probationary or permanent). The two sexes also expressed significantly different view about managerial posts. Female members were show to be more satisfied than their male colleagues (P< .05).

Satisfaction with career increased as the faculty members promoted to higher academic rank (P< .05). Further analysis of the data revealed a statistically significant linear relationship between the following pairs of variables: age and promotion aspects, salary and overall satisfaction score, years of employment and amount of salary, academic rank and promotion variable.

A multi–regression analysis of the data showed that years of employment as a faculty members negatively correlated with all aspects of satisfaction. Also age was shown to be directly related to all dimensions of satisfaction (P< .05).

Key words : job satisfaction , promotion , supervision , salary , nature of work , colleagues , career,…

Introduction: Job satisfaction has been regarded as harmony of one’s positive individual attitudes towards his/her work and as compatibility of the individual with his / her duties and with the working conditions and conjunctures governing the work. Of course, this concept is different from the person’s attitude toward individual components of the job1.

In fact, job satisfaction can viewed as one's general attitude toward his job as an integral whole, rather than its individual components2.

There are two common methods to assay job satisfaction: the summary method and the detailed /one .The latter deals with many aspects of the job whereas in the former the clerk is subjected to "one question" which he/she should answer by providing a circle round one of the choices ranging from 1 to 5 . The detailed method is more complicated. In this method, essential constituents of the job are identified and they are then subjected to the individual to seek his/her views about them. Examples of the constituents are as follows: nature of the work, supervision, salary, opportunities for promotion, and the manner of behavior toward colleagues3. These factors are scored and assayed according to a standard scale and then the scores are summed up to identify the degree of the individual’s satisfaction with his/her career .The method used in this study is composed of various dimensions as follows :

Nature of work: This term refers to peculiar features of professional duties of the individual.

Salary and payments: That is the rate of fiscal wage one earns and the degree to which he/she regards his/her wage fair and just as compared with the wages of others5.

Opportunities for promotion: This is used to refer to opportunities for promotion in the organizational hierarchy of the individual's work place6

Control and supervision : That is the method of maintaining relationship between the individual and his/her direct supervisor on the one hand and the supervisor’s abilities in providing support and technical aid for the individual ( the employee ) on the other7.

Professional colleagues: This term refers to the rate of colleagues’ technical efficacy that, from a social perspective, are regarded as a support for the individual 8.

Therefore, job satisfaction can reflect both a general attitude and a peculiar view specific to a particular job9.

Materials and Methods: This study is a descriptive and analytical work with a cross-sectional design. The participants who served as the subjects of the study were composed of 194 clinical faculty members of whom 33 were not included in the sample for different reasons like retirement, transfer (to other universities) and sabbatical leave. The remaining 154 participants, working in various clinical departments of the university, served as the statistical sample of the study. Then a total of 154 copies of a" standardized job- description inventory" were distributed among them, of which 122 copies were completed and returned back to the researcher. To obtain other necessary information, a self- administrated questionnaire about personal information was also used together with the standardized job-description questionnaire11.The job-description inventory whose validity and reliability had already been approved, using Combat’s reliability formula (r = 0/84) was subjected to test-retest procedure on 10 nursing staff of the university, with a time interval of 10 days. The correlation coefficient was 0.90 indicating a very high reliability index. The questionnaire using a five point Linker scale was composed of 30 questions formulated to study five dimensions of job satisfaction as follows: nature of work, salary, promotion, managers and colleagues. A sum of five questions was related to each particular dimension.

In this study the following statistical measures were used:

Two sample t-test, one way ANOVA with LSD procedure, Spearman's Rho, correlation coefficient, regression analysis with stepwise method.

The level of significance for statistical calculation was regarded as P ? 0.05.

Results: The following data were obtained from 122 questionnaires that had been completed by the participants. Distribution of individuals based on general (demographic) variables are shown in table 1.

Table 1: A comparison of various dimensions of job satisfaction of clinical faculty members based on their employment status

Dimensions of job satisfactionEmployment status *

Full- timeGeographic Full- time *P- value

X SDXSD

Nature of work2.780.870.462.790.47

Salary1.780.100.562.020.72

Promotion1.921.000.741.90.83

Managers2.320.380.762.180.75

Colleagues2.880.570.552.820.50

Total2.340.900.392.350.42

t - Test

*The term “geographic full- time" refers refer to the a faculty members who are supposed not to be involved in any profit- making activities, such as working in private clinics, whereas the term “full time" refers to the faculty members who officially may spend fewer working hours in the university and may set up their own private clinics.

As the table shows, among the variables under study, there was no significant difference between the two groups of full-time and geographic full-time members.

Table 2: A comparison of various dimensions of clinical faculty members based on type of employment

P- valuePermanentProbationaryShort- term contractDimensions of job satisfaction

SDXSDXSDX

0.56.452.80.542.74.342.93Nature of work

0.92.681.85.681.82.751.77Salary

0.04*.812.05.801.67.802.14Promotion

0.83.752.29.752.26.722.43Managers

0.90.502.86.552.82.422.87Colleagues

0.33.392.37.442.26.352.43Total

* P- value was significant (ANOVA)

In Table 2, the probationary members and the permanent members were significantly different in terms of the nature of work. The scores for permanent members more than those of the probationary ones.

Table 3: A comparison of various dimensions of job satisfaction of clinical faculty members based on their marital status

Dimensions of job satisfactionMarital status

MarriedsingleP-value

?SDXSD

Nature of work2.790.492.940.270.44

Salary1.830.701.890.630.84

Promotion1.930.812.061.130.73

Managers2.280.762.420.500.66

Colleagues2.850.532.750.140.63

Total2.340.412.410.360.67

There was no significant difference between married and single members in terms of various dimensions of job satisfaction under study.

Table 4: Satisfaction rate in relation to the age of faculty members and each of the dimensions under study

Dimensions of job satisfactionGender

MaleFemaleP value

?SDXSD

Nature of work2.820.472.690.510.27

Salary1.820.691.900.700.64

Promotion1.100.841.660.710.09

Managers2.220.752.620.660.02*

Colleagues2.840.522.880.490.76

Total2.340.412.350.410.92

*significant difference (t- test)

In table 4, in terms of the gender of the participants, just the managerial dimension seems to be statistically significant, with females being more satisfied than males.

Table 5: Correlation coefficient for job satisfaction dimensions and person features of faculty members

Job satisfaction dimensions

Nature of work

Salary

Promotion

Managers

Colleagues

Total

Personal featuresrP valuerP valuerP valuerP valuerP valuerP value

University (educational) rank

0.103

0.263

0.174

0.057

0.218

0.017 *

- 0.078

0.394

0.088

0.341

0.173

0.059

Age

0.175

0.054

0.198

0.030 *

0.212

0.020 *

- 0.041

0.652

0.135

0.139

0.194

0.032 *

Years of teaching (as faculty members)

0.096

0.294

0.204

0.024 *

0.047

0.611

- 0.032

0.726

0.124

0.172

0.121

0.186

Years of working (as government employees)

0.055

0.549

0.141

0.122

0.095

0.298

- 0.044

0.633

0.083

0.366

0.087

0.344

* Statistically significant

In table 5, correlation coefficients of Spearman show a linear link between university rank, age, years of teaching on the one hand and some dimensions of satisfaction on the other. Although this relationship fails to be statistically significant, it indicates a positive linear trend. Of course, only age manifested a significant relationship with promotion, salary and the total score. Years of working as a government employee, which includes teaching experience as faculty member as well, showed no significant relationship with any of the dimensions under study.

After investigating the link between different variables, and of the dimensions under study, an overall investigation of the issues under study was undertaken. In other words, we would like to compare all the variables one by one, using a single table, as is shown in Table 6. The numbers in the table, appearing in the columns are coefficients of ?. There are the relationships between dependent and independent variables are formulated in Table 6.

Table 6: Multi- factorial analysis of job satisfaction dimensions and personal features under study

Dimensions of job satisfaction

R2

Age

Years of teaching (as faculty members)University (educational)

rank

Type of employment

Employ men t statusYears of working (as government employees)

Nature of work0.9720.075-0.0780.214------

Salary0.8850.052-0.035--------

Promotion0.8700.055-0.041--------

Managers0.9000.059-0.066--------

Colleagues0.9670.074-0.7100.235------

Total0.9730.070-0.060--------

R2 = determination coefficient

As the table 6 indicates, the nature of work showed a 97.2% correlation with years of teaching, university rank and age variables. Of course this relationship positively correlated with age and university rank but negatively with years of teaching as faculty members. A similar picture also seems to have happened in relation to colleagues in which (although less than the others) the overall pattern is more or less similar. Other variables did not show any meaningful relationship, although they manifested a negative relationship with age and years of teaching as faculty members. Other variables like type of employment, employment status and years of working as government employees were also investigated in this model, but none of them met the requirements to be included in the model.

Discussion and conclusion:

The results obtained, from this study showed that faculty members were most satisfied with the nature of their work and their university colleagues followed them in this sense. They were also in favor of activities that were in line with the fields of specialty they had acquired. Such features seem to be in harmony with physicians expectations of their experties12. Other studies have also referred to the strong link between availability of sympathetic colleagues and job satisfaction13. The reason is obvious because many useful hours of the employee everyday is spent working in an environment where other colleagues are also present. If the relationship among those who are in close contact every working day is not friendly and intimate then the working condition would turnout to be unbearable. All this indicates the significance of providing a friendly atmosphere the colleagues working together. To achieve this, the cooperation of both colleagues and the authorities involved in such activities is of special significance.

According to the results of this study, the subjects under study were least satisfied with their salary and promotion policies and referred to the significance of observing justice in paying salaries or exerting promotion procedures. Also, the results show that people are happier with higher wages. Although the link between this relationship and its practical aspect remains doubtful. It will be more satisfactory when the salary which an employee obtains is similar to or more than what is paid to others doing a similar work14.

There was a significant difference between the "full time" and "geographic full- time members", in terms of employment (probationary and permanent) and the promotion dimension. Some studies show that the employees like to see that their affiliate organization is just in tackling promotion issues, by providing proper opportunities f