Job Satisfaction: A study among Public and Private University Teachers of Bangladesh

Masud Ibn Rahman * Rumana Parveen

Abstract
This paper investigates the factors contributing to the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the public and private university teachers of Bangladesh and also searches for influential factors. Based on a survey, it attempts to gain insights into the satisfaction levels from the perspective of the university teachers. It has been found that there is a significant difference between public and private university teachers regarding job satisfaction on different factors. The present study attempts to order all influential factors following overall job satisfaction through some statistical techniques. It also compares the overall job satisfaction level and the nature of satisfaction among the public and private university teachers. The result reveals that teachers age and job experience do not have any significant influence on job satisfaction though gender disparities were profound among their responses. This suggests us how to reduce the dissatisfaction level of the teachers in various universities and to find out the real nature and cause of the dissatisfaction.

Key Words: 1. Introduction A high quality teaching staff is the cornerstone of a successful educational system. Attracting and retaining high quality teachers is a primary necessity for education in any country. One step in developing a high quality faculty is understanding the factors associated with teaching quality and retention. One of these factors is job satisfaction, which has been studied widely by organizational researchers and has been linked to organizational commitment as well as to organizational performance (Ostroff, 1992). Job satisfaction has been defined as a general attitude toward ones job. It is in regard to ones feelings or stateof-mind regarding the nature of their work. According to Robbins (1997), Job satisfaction is the difference between the amount of rewards employees receive and the amount they believe they should receive. Again Mobey and Lockey(1970) opined Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are function of the perceived relationship between what one expects and obtains from ones job and how much importance or value one attributes to it. There has been disagreement among researchers about whether Job satisfaction has multiple dimensions. Researchers like Porter and Lawler (1972) define Job satisfaction as a one-dimensional contract; that is, one is generally satisfied or dissatisfied with ones job. In contrast, Smith, Kendall and Hulin argue that Job satisfaction is multidimensional; that is one may be more or less satisfied with ones supervisor, pay or workplace etc.

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business and Economics, Daffodil International University , Dhaka Lecturer , Faculty of Business and Economics, Daffodil International University , Dhaka *** Agri-ficilitator, LGED, Agargaon, Dhaka

1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1155303

For the purpose of our work, we follow the second opinion and define job satisfaction as an emotional response towards various facets of ones job. A person can be relatively satisfied with one aspect of his/her job and dissatisfied with one or more other aspects. Authors also vary in opinions of what should be these factors or facets. According to Stephen P Robbins (1997), finding summation of satisfaction regarding different job facets is a sophisticated approach of measuring Job satisfaction and the five key elements are: nature of the work, supervision, present pay, promotion opportunities and relation with coworkers. John W. Newstrom and Keith Davis (1997), added immediate working condition along with the above five factors. 2. Related Research Professor Herzberg et al (1959), after conducting a massive study developed Two Factor Theory that identifies two set of factors contributing to Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Those are (1) Hygiene factors: salary, relation with superior and peer, quality of technical supervision, company policy and administration, working condition etc. and (2) Motivation factors: Achievements, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement and possibility of growth. Applebums (1997) study identified that there is a positive correlation between the nature of the job design including task complexity, task variety, task independence and job satisfaction. Some demographic factors have influence on Job satisfaction as showed in some research works. Kalleberg and Loscocco (1983) showed that in USA, older workers are more satisfied than younger workers. Shapiro and Stern (1975) found that in USA professional women experienced lower levels of Job satisfaction than their male counterparts. Islam (1999) found out that in Bangladesh, the level of Job satisfaction of Government employees is higher than that of NGO employees and male employees are more satisfied than women. Rahman and Sarcar (1990) found that among professional women occupational stress was higher for unmarried ones. However most of the studies identified the relationship between job-related factors and Job satisfaction. Khaleque and Rahman (1987) conducted a study on Job satisfaction of Bangladeshi industrial workers regarding influence of some job facets including job content, coworkers, supervision, wage promotion, work environment and communication. They concluded that job facets can be source of satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction. Overall Job satisfaction of industrial workers is influenced by the job facets and personal life and the degree of satisfaction depends upon the perceived importance of the job facets. Alam (2003) conducted a research on the Job satisfaction of female workers in different garment factories in Dhaka city and concluded the level of satisfaction is positively correlated with level of wages they get. Ziaul , Anwar and Nazrul (2005), in their study

2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1155303

on comparative Job satisfaction of senior male and female executives in Bangladesh , showed that there are insignificant difference between male and female executives regarding satisfaction in different facets of job. A comprehensive research work was conducted during 1985-86 on Job satisfaction of Teachers of Dhaka University by Institute of Education and Research. The Researchers, Muttaqui and Shaikh (1988) concluded that1. There were significant differences among teachers of different faculties in attitudes towards different aspects of their job 2. The teachers were dissatisfied with physical and technical facilities they use in university. 3. They ere satisfied with pay and interpersonal relationships in work. 4. Lecturers were less satisfied than their senior colleagues. 5. The professor and female teachers were the most satisfied group. Oshabemi (1997) conducted a comprehensive study on Job satisfaction of university teachers in UK. He concluded that1. Most of the teachers (81%) were satisfied though varied significantly in satisfaction of different job aspects. 2. Areas of higher satisfaction of university teachers were teaching function and research facilities. 3. Areas of lower satisfaction were pay, promotion and supervision. 3. Purpose of the Study Satisfaction with teaching as a career is an important policy issue since it is associated with teacher effectiveness which ultimately affects student achievement (Ashton and Webb, 1986; Carnegie Task Force on Teaching, 1986). Because faculty are both the largest cost and the largest human capital resource of a university, understanding factors that contribute to teacher satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is essential to improve the information base needed to support a successful higher education system. There is a research gap regarding satisfaction of teachers, specially university teachers as professionals in Bangladesh. The growth of private universities has added a new dimension in the graduation and post-graduation education in the country. Also there are vast differences between public and private universities regarding different job aspects. Thus it is a contemporary matter of interest whether or not those differences affect job satisfaction of teachers of the two types of universities. The present study is aimed to find out such disparity between job satisfaction of public and private university teachers through different dimension and density of satisfaction levels. More specifically we can furnish the objectives as follows: 1. To find out the differences between satisfaction level of public and private university regarding nine job aspects: Pay, Benefit, Advancement and growth, Work Itself, Leadership, Communication, Performance feedback and recognition, Colleagues and Stress.

2. To find out the difference between overall job satisfaction of public and private university teachers. 3. To identify the factors responsible for satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the two groups of teachers. 4. To suggest the ways of improvement the state of job satisfaction of the two groups of university teachers. 4. Hypothesis Following hypothesis have been furnished considering demographic issues and nine other factors of job-satisfaction. 1. H0: There is no significant difference between the public and private university teachers regarding the overall job satisfaction. H1: Public and private university teachers have significant difference regarding the overall job satisfaction. 2. H0: There is no significant effect of the age on overall job satisfaction score of University teachers. H1: Age has significant effect on job satisfaction university teachers. 3. H0: There is no significant difference between the male and female university teachers regarding the overall job satisfaction. H1: Male and female university teachers have significant difference regarding the overall job satisfaction. 4. H0: There is no significant association between payment of university teachers and the overall job satisfaction. H1: Payment of university teachers has significant association with overall job satisfaction. 5. H0: There is no significant association between benefit of university teachers and the overall job satisfaction. H1: Benefit of university teachers has significant association with overall job satisfaction. 6. H0: There is no significant association between Advancement and Growth (promotion research etc.) and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Advancement and Growth (promotion, research etc.) have significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 7. H0: There is no significant association between various facilities (Work Itself) of university and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Various facilities of university have significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 8. H0: There is no significant association between Leadership of university and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Leadership of university has significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 9. H0: There is no significant association between teamwork and communication of university and the overall job satisfaction of university teachers. H1: Teamwork and communication among university teachers have significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers.

10. H0: There is no significant association between performance feedback and recognition from the authority of university and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Recognition from the authority and performance feedback has significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 11. H0: There is no significant association between relationship with colleagues of university and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Relationship with colleagues of university has significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 12. H0: There is no significant association between stress at work and the overall job satisfaction university teachers. H1: Stress at work has significant association with overall job satisfaction university teachers. 5. Methodology Sample A total number of 20 public and private universities were selected purposively and a sample of 130 (65 public and 65 private) university teachers were selected randomly. The public universities includes: University of Dhaka, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Jahangirnagar University, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, University of Rajshahi and University of Chittagong. The private universities include-Independent University of Bangladesh, Stamford University, Daffodil International University, United International University, Eastern University, East west University, Northern University, South East University and American International University of Bangladesh. The Survey was conducted on December 2005 up to January 2006. Survey instrument A structured questionnaire was developed having 9 facets of job satisfaction which is addressed through 32 statements to which the respondents is asked to react using a six step Likert scale (Murray 1999)19 ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). About two third of the items stated in a positive manner and the other one third in a negative manner: negative items are reverse scored assessing a value of 1 to Strongly Disagree and 6 to Strongly Agree. At the end of the thirty-two questions, a final item was added: I am satisfied with my job. This item was intended to get the respondents gut reaction to the very general concept of job satisfaction. Statistical Methods for Calculations Data were analyzed on 3 different dimensions. Dimension-1: Study on the association between overall job satisfaction and all other categories/ factors along with some demographic factors to under stand the influence on

each other and vice versa through some statistical techniques like Cross tabulations, Chisquare tests, Cramers V and Pearsons correlation Coefficient. Dimension-2: Comparative Study through the mean score difference of Public and Private University teachers. This study will be conducted by the descriptive statistics (Mean and standard deviation) and statistical F tests following P-value. Dimension-3: Ranking of the satisfaction and dissatisfaction factor following the frequency of response and data concentration. Frequency Distribution Techniques along with percentage will be observed, classified and ordered. 6. Results and Discussion Findings of Dimension-1 analysis: The questionnaire includes six indicators (Type, Age, Gender, Career Path, Name, and Job times) and 32 other factors in the form of opinion with 6 scale under nine influential category. In each category there are 1 to 6 same type of questions/factors. Data then compiled and analyzed by using SPSS. To assess the association between the satisfaction level of public and private university teachers, statistical analysis like cross tabulation and chi square test were conducted. To understand the degree of association between the variables, Cramers V and Pearsons correlation coefficient r is observed. Research has shown that, among 130 respondents, half are from public university and other half are from private university. Table-6 indicates that relationship between public and private university teachers which did not support the assumption of difference (Pearson Chi-Square 9.58a, P= (2-sided) .082>.05 with 5 degrees of freedom, Cramer's V= 0.343 and r = -.24); that is, the null hypothesis is accepted. As such we can conclude that there is no significant difference between public and private university teachers regarding the overall satisfaction. Although the opinion regarding other categories of satisfaction widely differs, this is an interesting finding that in case of overall satisfaction most of the respondents seem to be satisfied to some extent. (see Table-5 Appendix A). Table-1: Cross-tabulation of the association between Public and private university teachers regarding the overall job satisfaction Type of University Public 1 3 7 9 30 15 65 Total Private 5 5 10 13 27 5 65 6 8 17 22 57 20 130

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

I am satisfied with my job

Analysis has supported the hypothesis of difference between male and female respondents regarding the job satisfaction of various aspects. Table-2 three explains the results of highly significant associations (Pearson Chi-Square 17.35a , P (2-sided) =.00 < .05 with 5 degree of freedom, Cramer's V=.36 and r =.01 ) between male and female university teachers. So there is a significant difference between male and female university teachers regarding their opinion on Overall job satisfaction. This is because of the social context of gender disparity where female are supposed to be more relaxes and secured in the profession of teaching. So the female respondents seem to be more satisfied than their male counterparts in this issue. Though there is very low degree of positive relation ( r = .01 ) between Gender and overall job satisfaction was found, the opinion differs widely. Table-2: Cross-Tabulation of the association between Male and female university teachers regarding the overall job satisfaction Gender of respondent Male 6 3 14 8 41 13 85 Total Femal e 5 3 14 16 7 45 6 8 17 22 57 20 130

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

It is also observed that there is no significant association between the age of the respondent and overall satisfaction of the university teachers. Analysis shows that age distribution is asymmetrical and it ranges from 25 years to 61 years where most of the respondents are below 35 years of age. The hypothesis is obviously accepted (Pearson Chi-Square 115.9 P= (2-sided) .422> .80 Cramer's V =.27 and r = .00). It suggests that both the teachers of public and private university, senior or junior no matter, do not differ on their opinion of job satisfaction. So age has no impact on job satisfaction of the university teachers. There are four questions regarding payment of university teachers in our questionnaire. Tasble-5 (Appendix A) shows the statistical results of the chi-square test along with P values to observe the association between payment and overall job satisfaction. The results support the concept of strong association between the variables Feeling on Payment and Rules for Salary Increase (Question 1 and 3 ). For Q-1: Pearson Chi-Square 44.32, P (2-sided) =.01< .05 with 25 degree of freedom, Pearsons r = .24, Cramer's V =26 .29 ). For Q-3: Pearson Chi-Square 39.85, P (2-sided) = .03< .05 with 25 degree of freedom, Pearsons r =.22 Cramer's V= .24)

I am satisfied with my job

The result differs on question 2 and 4 where there is no significant association between overall job satisfaction and rules for salary increase (Table-5 Appendix-A) The opinion differs because the rules of salary increase also differs within and between private and public universities in Bangladesh. The null hypothesis on the association between overall job satisfaction and two other factors i.e.,. Satisfaction with the benefits packages received and opinion on benefits are accepted. This means that there is no association between benefit package received and overall job satisfaction Pearson Chi-Square 31.50, P (2-sided) =.17 with 25 degree of freedom). For Q-6: Pearson Chi-Square 20.15, P (2-sided) = .73 with 25 degree of freedom, Pearsons r =-.06 Cramer's V= .17. Among these two variables, Q-6 is highly significant but it is negatively related with overall job satisfaction. Regarding the advancement and growth, there are four questions. The hypothesis is rejected for the association between overall job satisfaction and opinion on sufficient opportunity for research work as well as fairness of authority giving promotion. But is accepted for two other variables: satisfaction with the rules for promotion and respondents are not being used to their full capability. So it can be conclude that sufficient opportunity of research and overall job satisfaction is related while other two variables has no relation with the overall job satisfaction of the university teachers. (Hypothesis 6 : Promotion Policy). It is interesting to observe that I am not being used to my full capability has no relation (r = 0) with job satisfaction. Thus the opinion is quiet random. There are 5 questions on Work Itself category. Among the five variable expressed only sufficient classroom facilities for providing quality service have highly significant effect on overall job satisfaction (Pearson Chi-Square 24.64a, P = 0.48 Cramer's V= .19 and r = .05. Other four variables (Q-12 to Q-16) have highly significant association with overall job satisfaction (Table5 Appendix A). So we can make the decision that library, internet, campus area etc. are very significant issues for job satisfaction of the university teachers. Leadership category has only two questions and our hypothesis postulates that there is no association between leadership (consciousness about the problems and benefits and suggestion to management). Both the results show that the hypothesis is accepted (Table 5 Appendix A). i.e, these factors are not very important regarding satisfaction of university teachers. Also very poor degree of association is observed (r=.19 and .09 with Cramers V= 0.20 for both) in both the cases. It can easily be found from the analysis on teamwork and communication (Hypothesis-9) which states the relationship between overall job satisfaction and communication plus performance standard is accepted for both the factors/variables. Descriptive analysis (Table-7 Appendix C) also states that most of the respondents think that the authority is not very conscious about problems and benefits of teachers and their suggestion to management is often ignored. Table-5 Appendix A represents the value of chi-square, pvalue and Cramers V and Pearsons correlation coefficient for these factors which gives the strong evidence in favor of no relationship.

Similar type of test regarding the performance feedback and recognition from the authority (Hypothesis 10) showed that there is no statistically significant association between overall job satisfaction and all others factors. The hypothesis is accepted for all the factors under study (Q22 to Q26). (See Table 5 Appendix A) Study on the relationship between overall satisfaction of the university teachers and their relationship with colleagues shows that there strong evidence of association between these two variables (Chi-square=80.40 p= .00 V=.35 r = .31 and cji-square=56.83 P-value =.00 Cramers V=.29 and r= .27). Therefore, we can say that the satisfaction of the university teachers to some extent, are obviously related with the relationship with their colleagues. Our study in most of the cases have depict evidence in favor of dissatisfaction by many respondents but a good number of respondents have showed positive attitude (Q:27 and Q-28) opinion regarding their colleagues and overall satisfaction as well. This is perhaps because beside many other dissatisfaction they can seek sympathy and support from their colleagues by sharing many of the academic and non-academic issues. So this is quiet expected that this satisfaction has strong association with relation to their colleagues. The result of these are shown in Table-5 Appendix-A. To observe the association between overall satisfaction and stress (Q: 29 Q: 30), all the above statistical measures were taken and found that there is significant evidence of association of satisfaction with these two factors (Pearson Chi-Square 22.39, P (2-sided) = .61 with 25 degree of freedom, Pearsons r =-.04 Cramer's V= .18). Also the satisfaction and the factor I have too much to do at work is negatively related. This is quite normal because as the satisfaction stands on a strong positive state, stress never matter to an employee. But it immediately turns to negative relation with a significant rate when dissatisfaction occurs due to many other factors that an employees minimum expectation meets. From our analysis this concept is supported by the acceptances of the null hypothesis of no association between the variable under study. Findings of Dimension-2 analysis: A comparison between the opinions of public and private university teachers on job satisfaction has been established following F test of mean difference with 5% level of significance. The results of comparison are shown in Table 6 Appendix B. Among of 32 variables observed a total number of 16 factors were found significantly different ( P< .05 ; See Table 6 Appendix B) .For other half of the variables there is no significant difference between the mean score of public an d private university teachers. Among the factors some were highly significant (Q 2, 4, 15, 21, 25 and 32). For each of the question the P value is found to be .000, which means the null hypothesis of difference between the score of public and private university teachers is rejected. So we can expect some disparity on the satisfaction between public and private university teachers. Some of the similarity and dissimilarity are discussed below. In response to the question relating to overall job satisfaction I am satisfied with my job, both the group responded positively. But Public university teachers are more satisfied than the Private university teachers in overall satisfaction (Public mean 4.68 > Private mean 4.03). This difference in their overall satisfaction is statistically significant (F = 8.25 P value= .005).Same type of result is observed in the responses to the statement

I am well paid for exam duties. With response mean of 2.25 Private university teachers have clearly lower satisfaction in this field than Public university teachers (response mean 3.71). This difference is strongly significant ( F = 23.05 P value = .000). Private university teachers profoundly show that they like to switch their job and look for a better job (response mean 2.63) whereas public university teachers are very positive about their current job (response mean 4.22). Also there exist a highly significant difference (F = 24.74 P value = .000).Teachers of Both Public and Private Universities strongly expressed that they feel pride about their profession (Public mean 5.22; Private mean 4.46). However the difference of their mean response is significant (P value = .002). Private University teachers clearly show lower satisfaction than the Public university teachers regarding the campus area and facilities where they work. (Public mean 4.65 > Private mean 3.38) The differences in their response mean is very significant (P value = .000). They also showed lower satisfaction regarding the utilization of capability (response mean 2.85) than the Public university teachers (response mean 3.49). Their opinion differs quite significantly (F = 5.03 P value= .027) Public university teachers generally oppose that their job is repetitive and boring (mean 4.57) while private university teachers are not so positive in this field (mean 3.82 ) . In this regard, they differ quite significantly (F= 6.72 P value .011). Again both the group showed positive attitude about the quality of students they teach; but Public university teachers are more positive (response mean 4.60) than Private university teachers (response mean 3.82) in this case. This difference is obvious from the p value = .004. For the Nine factors discussed above the score of public university teachers seems to be higher than the score of private university teachers. Public university teachers feel that they are in better position regarding a good number of factors related to job satisfaction. In responses to the statement My payment is equitable to the others in similar positions in other companies Public and private university teachers differ. With response mean of 2.18 Public university teachers feel that they are lower paid than the Private university teachers (response mean 3.34). This difference is strongly significant ( F= 17.73 P value = .000).Again Public University teachers clearly show lower satisfaction than the Private university teachers in the responses relating to the performance feedback they get from the authority. (Private mean 3.72 > Public mean 2.40) The differences in their response mean is very significant (P value = .000) as well as the statement I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do . With response mean of 3.88 Private university teachers feel that their payment is not fair relating to their workload ( F = 11.02 P value = .001). Public University teachers feel that their performance standard in not properly defined (mean 3.18) whereas private university teachers responded positively to this statement (mean 4.34 ) . Their difference of opinion is showed through the F= 6.34 P value= .013. Teachers of Both Public and Private University positively responded about their relationship with colleagues. However the Private Universities are more positive than the

10

public university teachers in this case and this difference is significant (F =8.76 and 11.28 P value = .004 and .001). Interestingly found that teachers of both Public and Private University negatively responded to the statement When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive (Public mean 2.77; Private mean 2.62). There is no significant difference in their responses in the field (, F= .071, P value = .790).Both the group of teachers showed lower satisfaction about the rewards they get from the authority for their performance. (Public mean 3.20 ; Private mean 3.15). Hypothesis for no difference is accepted for this factor. (F=.023, P value = .879,). Findings of Dimension-3 analysis: From the table it is found that the distribution of the total number of respondents from the type of university is equal (Private: 65 Public: 65) whereas for other criteria there exist a unequal distribution. The percentages of male and female respondents are observed as 65.4% and 34.6 %. Majority of the respondents were lecturers (57.7%) while other distribution is professors (6.9%), Associate Professors (4.6%), Asst. Professors (20%) and Senior Lecturer (10%) of the total population under study. It shoulder be noted that Senior lecturers are only from Private universities. Descriptive of all other variables are presented in Table-7 Appendix C. On the basis of the results, following ranking of the factors are made through Mean and Standard deviation which are presented in Table-3. Public university teachers showed highest satisfaction in response to the statement I feel a sense of pride in doing my job with a mean 5.22 and SD 0.29. This means that in this issue, the public university teachers are almost extremely satisfied. This statement reveals that the teachers still are proud of their social status. The statement I like the people I work with is the second highest average score 4.82 with a SD 1.37. They have showed lowest satisfaction in the field of equity of payment. The mean response of the statement My payment is equitable to the others in similar positions in other companies is 2.18. Some satisfaction factors according to their order are shown in Table-3. Table-3 : Areas of higher and lower satisfaction for the Public university teachers according to the order of score Area of Higher Satisfaction Area of Lower Satisfaction Statement Mean SD Statement Mean I feel a sense of pride in 5.22 .29 My payment is equitable to the 2.18 doing my job others in similar positions in other companies I like the people I work with 4.82 1.37 Performance feedback are 2.4 communicated regularly My colleagues are helpful 4.8 1.37 When I do a good job, I receive 2.77 and cooperative the recognition for it that I should receive There are benefits we do not 4.71 1.54 Authority is very conscious 3.14 have which we should have about problems and benefits of teachers The campus area and 4.65 1.71 I think the authority is fair in 3.14

SD 1.55 1.72 1.77 4.35 1.88

11

facilities are satisfactory The students are worthy of 4.6 inducing quality teaching

1.47

giving promotion Performance standards are well 3.18 defined

1.81

Private university teachers have highest satisfaction in the field of relationship with coworkers. Their response to the statements relating to the issues showed highest level of satisfaction; (My colleagues are helpful and cooperative, mean response 5.51 and I like the people I work with, mean response 5.43). They have showed lowest satisfaction in the field of payment for exam duties (mean2.25). They feel that the payment they receive for exam duties is not just what they expect. Ordering of some influential satisfaction factors are shown in the table 4. Table-4: Areas of higher and lower satisfaction of Public university teachers according to the order of score Area of Higher Satisfaction Area of Lower Satisfaction Statement Mean SD Statement Mean My colleagues are helpful 5.51 1.00 I am well paid for exam duties 2.25 and cooperative I like the people I work 5.43 .97 When I do a good job, I receive the 2.62 with recognition for it that I should receive There are benefits we do 4.57 1.36 I always dream of a better job 2.63 not have which we should have I feel a sense of pride in 4.46 .37 I am not being used to my full 2.85 doing my job capability Performance standards are 4.34 1.35 I have too much to do at work 2.94 well defined There are sufficient 4.06 .76 I am not satisfied with the benefits 3.02 classroom facilities for package I receive providing quality service 7. Limitation of the study The sample does not include all the leading public and private universities. It also does not include teachers from all the fields of education. The sample of the present study is not large enough to represent the population of Public and private University teachers perfectly. But as the study was based on realistic hypotheses it is more or less applicable on the total population. 8. Suggestion for further research There might be differences among teachers of different fields regarding job satisfaction as identified by Muttaqui and Shaikh (1988). So there is scope for more comprehensive studies focusing such differences. Nevertheless, some other techniques like Mean Score of Relative Importance (MSRI) of satisfaction scoring (Alam, 2005) sometimes could be

SD 1.65 1.41 1.70 1.50 1.55 1.49

12

more applicable than this year long practiced procedure (MSQ). Simple Random Sampling for the Universities instead of Subjective Sampling will be more appropriate for this research. 8. Conclusion and Recommendation This study has investigated the job satisfaction characteristics of Private and Public university teachers of Bangladesh. Using several analytical methodologies, it finds the association between overall job satisfactions with several other factors. Also a comparative study on the Private and Public university teachers reflects similarity and dissimilarities of the two groups in some of the factors. Nevertheless, the major characteristics of the job satisfaction profiles of dissatisfied teachers were identified including their major concerns in the areas of pay, promotion, recognition from authority for good job and performance feedback. It is felt that if these concerns are properly addressed, the size and the gravity of the dissatisfaction experienced by dissatisfied teachers may be reduced. Out of a total no. of 37 factors studied, 14 factors (Q: 1, 3, 7, 9 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 27, 28, 31; For explanation, see Table-5 Appendix A) seems to be associated with overall job satisfaction. Among 12 considered hypotheses, 7 (Type, Age, Benefit, Work Itself, Leadership, Communication and Recognition; for explanation, see Table-5 Appendix A) are accepted. Therefore, those factors have no association with the gut reaction about overall satisfaction. Factors like payment, campus area (infrastructure), communication, performance feedback etc are needed to be properly addressed. The mean differences are found to be highly significant on some factors like rewards for work, recognition, authorities unconsciousness etc,. The SD of Table-7, App B shows disparity among the satisfaction scores. Least deviation is observed about the factors pride (SD =.29 for public and .34 for private). So there is no doubt that the teachers from both type of universities are consistently proud for what they do. Results show that gender of respondent has highly significant influence on job satisfaction while age and job experience did not affect their attitude. A clear disparity between male and female university teachers (Pearson Chi-Square 17.35a, P =.00 < .05 with 5 degree of freedom, Cramer's V=.36 and r =.01) was inspected because of the social context of Bangladesh. Still teaching is considered as the most accepted profession particularly for female because of a number of reasons. So, female respondents were more satisfied than their male counterparts. While testing for probable association between overall job satisfaction and university type, result shows evidence of positive association between this two. Most of the teachers positively expressed their opinion about overall satisfaction in their job. In responses to the question I am satisfied with my job; 20% of the teachers strongly agreed and 43.8% of them moderately agreed. This indicates that they are more or less satisfied with their job.

13

Though Public and Private University teachers were more or less similar in the response towards their overall job satisfaction; analysis shows that public university teachers are more satisfied than the private university teachers. (Public mean response 4.68, Private mean response 4.03, F = 8.26, P = .005). This is due to the flexibility and independence enjoyed by public university teachers. The teachers of public universities are working as valued part-time teachers in some private universities. They get paid or unpaid leave opportunity for higher studies in foreign countries easily. Many implicit and explicit causes act behind higher satisfaction of public university teachers. Authority of private universities should try to reduce this satisfaction-gap through analyzing the factors regarding which public university teachers are more satisfied than private university teachers as we have identified in this study. The study reveals that there are differences in the opinions of the two groups in many of the factors of job satisfaction. The comparative study between public and private university teachers portrays significant difference in 16 related factors out of a total number of 32. Six factors (equity of payment, payment for exam duties, campus areas and facilities, teamwork and communication, performance feedback and search for better job) depict highly significant difference. Almost all of the studies related to job satisfaction showed very sensitive reaction with their payment. Psychologically it is really difficult to be very satisfied with payment and salary. But in Bangladesh, there exists a clear disparity between the salary structure of public and private universities. It widely differs even within private universities. Analysis reflects the negative reaction of both public and private university teachers with relatively higher dissatisfaction scores. While public university teachers were more dissatisfied about equity of payment private university teachers were unhappy regarding payment for exam duties. In this connection, we recommend that public universities should focus on revising salary structure of their teachers. As this structure is designed centrally by Government Pay Commission, it might be a quite lengthy process to revise it. However, there is a different scenario in the private universities. They can promptly revise the salary structure to reduce inequalities of salary o their teachers. They should include teachers in salary restructuring. Most importantly private university authorities should seriously consider the matter of procuring higher payment for exam dutiesincluding payment for invigilation in exam halls, remuneration of examining written scripts and taking viva voce. Teachers of both type universities similarly showed dissatisfaction while reacted on opportunity of research work and fair promotion procedures. This might be partly for the malpractice of undue promotion as well as human psychological factors that usually acts adversely. It is true that there are similar rules and policies for promotion in all the public universities. But it has been observed that promotion decisions in public universities induced too many controversies being accused of political biasness and irregularities. On the other hand the problem with private universities is somewhat different as most of them have no structured rules and policies for promotion and also there lies vast dissimilarities and biasness in promotion practices among them. Our recommendation for both type universities is that only unbiased promotion decisions can increase satisfaction

14

of teachers in this regard. Also all the private university should design a similar promotion policy and communicate the policy properly with the teachers. Analysis also shows that private university teachers are enjoying more technological facilities (internet, multimedia etc.) than public university teachers and it has come out as a significant factor for the overall job satisfaction. Public university teachers are not properly satisfied with these facilities because of lack of adequate supply. Many public university teachers have expressed frustratingly that there are shortage of equipments and also some equipments constantly out of order. Even if there is a decision to introduce some new facilities; actualization of the decision is very time consuming. Two factors from Leadership category are very important regarding satisfaction of university teachers where very poor degree of association is observed (r=.19 and .09) in both the cases. Most of the respondents think that the authority is not very conscious about problems and benefits of teachers and their suggestion to management is often ignored. The teachers generally expressed that they want more prompt reaction of authority regarding their needs and conveniences in their workplaces. So administration should consider follow-up of the opinions of teachers about the problems they are facing and the facilities they consider important to be added. It is observed that the public universities suffer from bureaucratic red-tapism in many instances and subsequently the reaction of authority towards needs and demands of teachers is delayed. But the authority of private universities can take prompt decisions and reduce dissatisfaction of their teachers about authoritys unconsciousness about their problems and conveniences. Another thing that needs consideration of authority is allowing voice of teachers in management decisions. Authorities should arrange regular formal meetings with teachers to hear their suggestions and also try to value these suggestions. Private University teachers clearly show lower satisfaction regarding the campus area and facilities where they work and repetitiveness and boredom of job. There has been demand of proper campus facilities of private universities for long time. Most of the private universities do not have lounge for teachers, common room for students, canteen facilities and spacious libraries. So the teachers along with students face inconveniences and show dissatisfaction. This problem can be solved only if private universities try to develop their campus facilities. Another point of dissatisfaction is boredom of job as felt by private university teachers. This is due to lack of opportunity of the private university teachers to teach variety of subjects. This dissatisfaction can be reduced through restructuring the course design, syllabus and curricular activities. Both the group of teachers showed general dissatisfaction about the recognition they should get for good performance from the authority (public mean 2.77, private mean 2.62) and rewards for performance (public mean 3.20, private mean 3.15 ) . This should be a major focus of concern for the authority of both public and private universities. As the teachers showed general negative reaction in these fields, authorities should try to provide proper performance feedback to the teachers. They can design a performance feedback system with provision for monetary and non- monetary rewards for their performance. Better performance of teachers can be discussed in general meetings of

15

universities. Recognition of authority can be showed through formal or informal awards or letters. Monetary rewards might be providing performance based cash bonus or periodic bonus or increments. Like some other research in job satisfaction relationship with colleagues has come out as an important factor for the respondents. And most of the teachers are very positive about their colleagues. However the Private Universities are more positive than the public university teachers in this case and this difference is significant (F =8.76 and 11.28 P value = .004 and .001). Greater optimism of private university teachers can be explained through the absence of political grouping of teachers in most of the private universities. The cordial and less formal environment observed in private universities influenced private university teachers to opine very positively in this field. Interestingly despite many other dissatisfaction factors of different degree, respondents showed very positive attitude towards the sense of pride with their job. This truly reflects the optimism of university teachers who still think this job is a noble profession. Compared to many other job types, university teachers are still not very well paid yet they are proud of the prime philosophy of teaching. So the authority of all the universities should consider of providing higher satisfaction to the faculty members to uphold such optimistic attitude of the teachers in the future.

Reference Alam , S. M. Ikhtiar (2003). Job Satisfaction: A case Study of Female Workers in Different Garment Factories in Dhaka City. (Mimeo Presented to Faculty of Social Science, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. Applebum S. H. & Grigore M. L. (1997). Organizational change and Job Redesign in Integrated Manufacturing: A Macro Organizational to Micro-Organizational Perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21, No. 2, PP. 51-63 Arne L. Kalleberg and Karyn A. Lossocco . Aging, Values and Rewards : Explaing Age Differences in Job Satisfaction. American Sociological Review, February1983 , pp.7890 Davis, Keith and Newstrom , John W. (1997) . Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work . 11th Edition Pp 208-210. McGraw-Hill, New York. H. Jack Shapiro and Louis W. Stern, "Job Satisfaction: Male and Female, Professional and Non-professional Workers," Personnel Journal, July 1975, pp. 388-407 Herzberg, Frederick, Mousner, Bernard and Synderman, Barbara (1959) .The Motivation to Work . New York, Wiley. Islam , Nazrul (1999a). Job Stress and Job Satisfaction of Male and Female Employees Under Male and Female Supervisors. Bangladesh Psychological Studies, Vol. 9. PP 5970 Islam , Nazrul (1999b). Job Satisfaction of Government and NGO Employees of Dhaka City. Bangladesh Psychological Studies, Vol. 23. PP 19-26.

16

Khaleque, A. and Rahman, M. A., (1987). Perceived Importance of of Job Facets and Overall Job Satisfaction of Industrial Workers. Human Relations, Vol. 40, Issue 7, PP 401-416, New York. Locke, E. A. (1970) Job Satisfaction and Performance: A theoretical Analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 484-500. Mamun, Md. Ziaulhaq, Hossain, Anwar and Islam, Nazrul (2005). A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction of the Senior Male and Female Executives in Bangladesh. Jahangirnagar University Journal of Business Research, Vol. 7, 2005, pp 1-15 Muttaqi, Iqbal azziz and Shaikh, Delawar Hossain (1988). A Study on Job Satisfaction of the Dhaka University Teachers. Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, June 1988 . Oshagbemi, Titus (1997). Job Satisfaction Profile of University Teachers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, 1997, Pp 27-39, The Queens University of Belfast, UK. Ostroff, C. 1992. The Relationship between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 : 963-974 Rahman, Azizur and Sorcar, Nihar R. (1990). Occupational Stress, Marital Status and Job Satisfaction of Working Women. The Dhaka University Studies, Part C, Vol. 12(1).no. 2 , Pp 55-61. Richard A. Murray (1999) . Job Satisfaction of Professional and Paraprofessional Library Staff at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. A Masters paper for the M.S. in L.S.degree. February 1999. Robbins, Stephen P. (1997) . Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Wanous, J.P., Lawler, E.D. III (1972), "Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No.2, pp.95-105. Appendix-A Table-5: Results of association between different factors and overall job satisfaction of university teachers under study.
Stateme nts Age Type Gender JobDur JobNo Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Variables
Age of the university teachers Type of university (Public or Private) Gender of the respondents (Male Female) Duration of job Career Path I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do My payment is equitable to the others in similar positions in other companies. I feel satisfied with the rules for salary increases I am well paid for exam duties I am not satisfied with the benefits package I receive There are benefits we do not have which we should have

Value of 2
115.91 9.58 17.35 23.15 18.87 44.32 25.43 39.85 28.97 31.50 20.15

Pvalues
0.80 .08 .00 .56 .53 .01 .43 .03 .26 .17 .73

Cramers V .42 .27 .36 .00 .19 .26 .19 .24 .21 .22 .17

Pearsons r .00 -.24 .01 -.04 .01 .24 .14 .22 .08 .10 -.06

17

Q7 Q8 Q9 Q 10 Q 11 Q 12 Q 13 Q 14 Q 15 Q 16 Q 17 Q 18 Q 19 Q 20 Q 21 Q 22 Q 23 Q 24 Q 25 Q 26 Q 27 Q 28 Q 29 Q 30 Q 31 Q 32

There are sufficient opportunity for research work in my university I am satisfied with the rules and policies for promotion. I think the authority is fair in giving promotion I am not being used to my full capability

38.77 29.49 38.83 30.73 24.64 60.14 57.59 41.66 43.89 44.75 27.89 28.46 25.31 26.61 43.66 28.14 34.48 24.22 32.75 32.84 80.40 56.83 22.39 35.78 -43.30

.03 .24 .03 .19 .48 .00 .00 .02 .01 .00 .31 .28 .44 .37 .01 .30 .09 .50 .13 .13 .00 .00 .61 .07 -.01

.24 .21 .24 .21 .19 .30 .29 .25 .26 .26 .20 .20 .19 .20 .58 .20 .23 .19 .22 .22 .35 .29 .18 .23 -.25

.11 .22 .24 .00 .05 .19 .43 .32 .21 .35 .19 .09 -.07 .07 .25 .18 -.07 .04 .08 .10 .31 .27 -.04 -.01 -.23

There are sufficient classroom facilities for providing quality service

There are sufficient library and internet facilities for providing quality service

I feel a sense of pride in doing my job I feel my job is repetitive and boring The campus area and facilities are satisfactory The students are worthy of inducing quality teaching Authority is very conscious about problems and benefits of teachers My suggestion to management is taken seriously I often feel that I do not know what is going on within the university Performance standards are well defined I am happy with the teamwork and communications in the organization When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive Performance rating system is not properly designed Teachers should not be rated by students Performance feedback are communicated regularly There are few rewards for those who work here I like the people I work with My colleagues are helpful and cooperative I have too much to do at work I don't have enough time for leisure activities and my family
I am satisfied with my job

I always dream of a better job

Appendix-B Table-6 Mean Difference Test on Job Satisfaction Index of Public and Private University Teachers in Bangladesh State ment 1 Variables Public Mean
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for

Private SD Mean SD 1.46

Total mean 3.42

3.97

1.65 3.88

Public-Private Comparison F test Sig () 11.022 .001

18

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

the work I do My payment is equitable to the others in similar positions in other companies. I feel satisfied with the rules for salary increases I am well paid for exam duties I am not satisfied with the benefits package I receive There are benefits we do not have which we should have There are sufficient opportunity for research work in my university I am satisfied with the rules and policies for promotion. I think the authority is fair in giving promotion I am not being used to my full capability

2.18 3.22 3.71 3.55 4.71 3.75 3.62 3.14 3.49 3.72 3.40 5.22 4.57 4.65 4.60 3.14 3.51 3.48 3.18 3.37 2.77 3.46 2.40 2.40 3.20 4.82 4.80 3.48

1.55 3.34 1.69 3.32 1.82 2.25 1.9 3.02 1.54 4.57 1.64 3.40 1.81 3.18 1.88 3.48 1.77 2.85 .84 4.06 1.77 3.69 .29 4.46 1.62 3.82 1.71 3.38 1.47 3.82 4.35 3.18 1.70 3.23 1.83 3.94 1.81 4.34 1.68 3.29 1.77 2.62 1.97 3.32 1.72 3.72 1.72 3.72 1.80 3.15 1.37 5.43 1.37 5.51 1.66 2.94

1.54 1.60 1.65 1.49 1.36 1.67 1.58 1.50 1.50 .76 1.68 .37 1.69 1.78 1.52 1.66 1.63 1.58 1.35 1.60 1.41 1.71 1.86 1.80 1.64 .97 1.00 1.55

2.76 3.27 2.98 3.28 4.64 3.58 3.40 3.31 3.17 3.89 3.55 4.84 4.09 4.02 4.20 3.16 2.87 3.71 3.76 3.33 2.69 3.39 3.02 3.05 3.18 5.12 5.51 3.21

17.73 .139 23.05 3.23 .296 1.49 2.09 1.288 5.039 1.149 .932 10.408 6.721 16.965 8.844 .006 6.148 2.370 6.349 16.972 .071 .301 .184 17.520 .023 8.766 11.283 3.655

.000 .710 .000 .075 .587 .225 .151 .259 .027 .286 .336 .002 .011 .000 .004 .936 .014 .126 .013 .000 .790 .584 .669 .000 .879 .004 .001 .058 19

There are sufficient classroom facilities for providing quality service

There are sufficient library and internet facilities for providing quality service

I feel a sense of pride in doing my job I feel my job is repetitive and boring The campus area and facilities are satisfactory The students are worthy of inducing quality teaching Authority is very conscious about problems and benefits of teachers My suggestion to management is taken seriously I often feel that I do not know what is going on within the university Performance standards are well defined I am happy with the teamwork and communications in the organization When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive Performance rating system is not properly designed Teachers should not be rated by students Performance feedback are communicated regularly There are few rewards for those who work here I like the people I work with My colleagues are helpful and cooperative I have too much to do at work

30 31 32

I don't have enough time for leisure activities and my family I am satisfied with my job I always dream of a better job

3.37 4.68 4.22

1.64 3.11 1.07 4.03 1.92 2.63

1.71 1.38 1.70

3.24 4.35 3.42

.792 8.265 24.746

.375 .005 .000

Appendix-C Table-7 Frequency of the Questions on the basis of 9 categories is given in the following table:
Statem ents Stateme nts Unitype Gender Designa Designation of the teachers Jobdur JobNo Career path of the respondents 1 2 3 I feel satisfied with the rules for salary increases 4 I am well paid for exam duties 5 I am not satisfied with the benefits package I receive There are benefits we do not have which we should have
18(13.8) 29(23.3) 9(6.9) 20(15.4) 42(33.3) 12(9.2) 21(16.2) 6(4.6) 35(26.9) 10(7.7) 19(14.6) 10(7.7) 17(13.1) 17(31.1) 17(13.1) 43(33.1) 21(16.2) 44(33.8) 46(35.4) 21(16.2) 9(6.9) 12(9.2) 12(21.5) 14(10.8)

Variables 1 Variable Type of the university (Public Private) Gender of the respondents
65(50) 85 (65.4) 9(6.9) 37(28.5) 52 (40) 65(50) 45 (34.6) 6 (4.6) 33(25.4) 52(40) 25(19.2) 33(25.4) 28(21.5) 26 (20) 30(23.1) 16(12.3)

Scale 2 3 4 5 6

13 (10) 12(9.2) 7(5.4) 20(36.2) 10 (7.7) 30(23.1)

75 (57.7) 2 (1.5) 3 (2.3) 47(36.2) 23 (17.7) 25(19.2)

1 (.8) 16 (12.3)

Duration of job

I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do My payment is equitable to the others in similar positions in other companies.

23(17.7) 39 (30) 25(19.2)

11(8.5) 17(13.1) 11(8.5)

4(3.1) 8 (6.2) 11(8.5)

6 7 8 9 10 11

There are sufficient opportunity for research work in my university I am satisfied with the rules and policies for promotion. I think the authority is fair in giving promotion I am not being used to my full capability
17(13.1) 24(18.5) 11(8.5) 14(10.8) 32(24.6) 32(24.6) 23(17.7) 27(20.8) 16(12.3) 8(13.8) 31(23.8) 15(11.5)

30(23.1) 21(16.2)

17(13.1) 36(27.7

17(13.1) 27(20.8)

30(23.1) 9(6.9

21(16.2) 20(15.4)

15(11.5) 17(13.1)

There are sufficient classroom facilities for providing quality service

20

15(11.5)

35(26.9)

17(13.1)

13(10.0)

27(20.8)

23(17.7)

12 13 14 15 16 17

There are sufficient library and internet facilities for providing quality service
4(3.1) 9(6.9) 23(17.7) 20(15.4) 14(10.8) 8(6.2) 12(9.2) 17(13.1) 23(17.7) 17(13.1) 16(12.3) 7(5.4) 21(16.2 37(28.5) 30(22.1) 28(21.5) 31(23.87) 55(42.3) 40(30.8/) 41(31.5) 34(26.32)

I feel a sense of pride in doing my job

9(69)

I feel my job is repetitive and boring The campus area and facilities are satisfactory The students are worthy of inducing quality teaching
30(23.1) 42(32.3) 11(8.5) 15(11.5) 20.(15.4) 12(9.2) 17(13.1) 7(5.4)

Authority is very conscious about problems and benefits of teachers

39(30.0) 30(23.1) 9(6.9) 22(16.9 21(16.2) 9(6.9)

18 19 20

My suggestion to management is taken seriously

14(10.8) 28921.5) 20(15.4) 15(11.5) 26(20.) 27(20.8)

I often feel that I do not know what is going on within the university Performance standards are well defined I am happy with the teamwork and communications in the organization
21(16.2) 29(23.3) 20(15.4) 18(13.8) 30(21.1) 12(9.2) 25(19.2) 15(11.5) 28(21.5) 26(20.0) 16(12.3) 14(10.8) 21916.2) 17(13.1) 28(21.5) 36(27.7) 12(9.2) 22(16.9)

21 22 23 24

When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive Performance rating system is not properly designed Teachers should not be rated by students
27(20.8) 28(21.5) 24(18.5) 14(10.8) 20(15.4) 17(13.1) 37(28.5) 40(30.8) 37(28.5) 26(20.0) 18(13.8) 14(10.8) 14(10.8) 9(6.9) 15(11.5) 20(15.4) 9(6.9) 21(16.2)

25 26 27 28 29

Performance feedback are communicated regularly There are few rewards for those who work here I like the people I work with
4(3.1) 3(2.3) 36(27.7) 32(24.6) 6(4.6) 22(16.96) 19(14.6) 16(12.3 13(10.30) 18(13.8) 28(21.5) 27(20.8) 23(17.7 73(56.2) 12(9.2) 15(11.5) 27(20.8) 3(2.3) 28(21.5) 7(5.4) 24(18.5) 3(2.3) 14910.8) 8(6.2) 20(18.4) 46(35.4) 17(13.1) 63(48.5)

My colleagues are helpful and cooperative

20(15.4)

I have too much to do at work

23.(17.7)

30 31 32

I don't have enough time for leisure activities and my family

6(4.6) 8(6.2) 16(12.3) 17(13.1) 13(10.0) 22(16.9) 11(8.5) 67(43.8) 25(19.2) 20(16.4) 28(21.5)

I am satisfied with my job

37(28.5)

I always dream of a better job

21

Note: Percentage of frequency for items and scale are given in parenthesis beside each frequency

22