MGT 1105

Factors Influencing Academic Staff Job Satisfaction of Higher
Education in the Sultanate of Oman

‫دراسة العوامل المؤثرة في الرضا الوظيفي ألعضاء هيئة التدريس في معاهدالتعليم‬
‫العالي في سلطنةعمان‬
By
Ziyana Ali AL-Hinai
110102
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of MSc Project Management
Faculty of Business
Dissertation Supervisor
Dr Arun Bajracharya
November-2013
Contents
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ 1
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 History and background ........................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Research problem .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Research importance ............................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Research aim and objectives ................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Research scope ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Research structure ................................................................................................................. 6
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ................................................................................................ 8
2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 The importance and status of Higher Education in Oman .................................................... 8
2.1.1 Development of human resources (Omanisation) .......................................................... 8
2.2 Understanding the concept of Job Satisfaction ................................................................... 11
2.3 The significance of academic staff job satisfaction in HEI ................................................. 12
2.4 Theories on Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Herzberg or two-factor theory ...................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Maslow’s theory ........................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Factors influencing academic staff job satisfaction in higher education ............................ 14
2.6 Models on job Satisfaction .................................................................................................. 16
Chapter three: Conceptual framework .......................................................................................... 19
3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.1 Factors derived from the literature ...................................................................................... 19
3.2 Factors explored through the qualitative data ..................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Factors related to remuneration and development ........................................................ 21
3.2.2 Factors related to students ............................................................................................ 21
3.2.3 Factors related to colleagues......................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Factors related to the management support .................................................................. 24
3.2.5 Factors related to the workload .................................................................................... 25
3.2.6 Factors related to status of the job ................................................................................ 26
3.3 Research conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 26
Chapter four: Research Methods .................................................................................................. 30
4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.1 Research strategies .............................................................................................................. 30
4.1.1 Justification on the selected research strategy .............................................................. 30
4.1.2 Sampling approach ....................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Data collection..................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Instruments and measures ............................................................................................. 33
4.3 framework of data analysis ................................................................................................. 36
4.4 limitations and potential problems ...................................................................................... 37
4.5 Overall research methods design......................................................................................... 38
Chapter five Survey findings: Description, Analysis and Synthesis ............................................ 40
5. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 40
5.1. Survey findings framework ................................................................................................ 41
5.2 Description .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Frequency results .......................................................................................................... 42
5.2.2 Reliability test ............................................................................................................... 46
5.2.3 Correlation analysis ...................................................................................................... 47
5.2.4 Multicollinearity ........................................................................................................... 49
5.2.5 Regression analysis....................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Analysis and synthesis ........................................................................................................ 55
5.3.1 Factors related to Remuneration and Development ..................................................... 56
5.3.2 Factors related to Students ............................................................................................ 62
5.3.3 Overall job satisfaction ................................................................................................. 64
5.3.4 Factors related to Management support........................................................................ 67
5.3.5 Factors related to Colleagues ........................................................................................ 68
5.3.6 Factors related to Workload ......................................................................................... 69
5.3.7 Factors related to Status of the job ............................................................................... 70
Chapter six: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 71
6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 71
6.1 Summary of findings and Conclusions .......................................................................... 72
6.2 Contribution to knowledge .................................................................................................. 74
6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 75
6.4 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 76
6.5 Self-reflection ...................................................................................................................... 76
References ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... I
Appendix one- research structure ................................................................................................. I
Appendix two- a. factors influencing academic staff job satisfaction ........................................ II
b. Factors affecting academic staff job satisfaction models ................................................... VIII
Appendix three- Qualitative approach ....................................................................................... X
Appendix four- Quantitative approach ...................................................................................... XI
Appendix five- SPSS results .................................................................................................. XVI
List of graph’s
Graph 1 Relationship between Remuneration and development and Job Satisfaction ................. 54
Graph 2 Relationship between Students and Job Satisfaction ...................................................... 55
List of tables
Table 1Conceptual framework breakdown ................................................................................................. 29

Table 2 Instruments and measures .............................................................................................................. 35
Table 3 Individual reliability test ................................................................................................................ 46
Table 4 Correlation analysis ....................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5 Guildford’s rule of thumb correlation coefficient interpretation ................................................... 48
Table 6 Common regression problems ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 7 Regression analysis ........................................................................................................................ 50
Table 8 Regression analysis model summary ............................................................................................ 52
Table 9 ANOVA ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 10 Regression analysis Coefficients ................................................................................................. 53
Tables of figures
Figure 1The importance of Higher Education in Oman.............................................................................. 10

Figure 2 Herzberg theory – job satisfaction model ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 3 Maslow's theory ............................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4 Approach to Conceptual framework............................................................................................. 19
Figure 5 Major factors derived from the literature...................................................................................... 20
Figure 6 Conceptual framework design ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 7 Choosing among statistical techniques ......................................................................................... 37
Figure 8 Overall research methods design .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 9 Process of description, analysis and synthesis leading to evaluation ........................................... 40
Figure 10 Survey findings framework ........................................................................................................ 41
Figure 11 Example of relationship and strength between the variables...................................................... 53
Figure 12 The mean of Remuneration and development score factors ....................................................... 57
Figure 13 The mean scores of Management Support items in relation to students .................................... 62
Figure 14 The mean scores of Overall Job Satisfaction .............................................................................. 65
Figure 15 Overall job satisfaction and academic rank ................................................................................ 66
Figure 16 Structure of conclusion chapter .................................................................................................. 71
Figure 17 - Teacher SatisfactionModel #1 ............................................................................................... VIII
Figure 18- Areas influencing job satisfaction Model #2 .......................................................................... VIII
Figure 19- Attitudes toward the job Model #3 ......................................................................................... VIII
Figure 20- Areas influencing job satisfaction Model #4 .......................................................................... VIII
Figure 21- Areas influencing job satisfaction Model #5 ............................................................................. IX
Figure 22- Employee job satisfaction Model #6 ......................................................................................... IX
Figure 23- Overall job satisfaction Model#7 .............................................................................................. IX
Figure 24- Overall job satisfaction Model #8 ............................................................................................. IX
Abbreviations
AJSQ-Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
BUiD- The British University in Dubai
GCC- Gulf Cooperation Countries
HEI- Higher Education Institutes
HR- Human Resources
JIG- Job in General
JDI-Job Descriptive Index
JSI- Job Satisfaction Index
KSA- Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
MoHE- Ministry of Higher Education
MSQ-Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
OLS- Ordinary Least Squares
SPSS- Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UK- united Kingdom
VIF-Variance Inflation Factor
WRSQ -Warr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and Measure of Job

Acknowledgment
First I would like to Thank and Praise God (Allah) for given me the strength and abilityto
complete this dissertation successfully. I further acknowledge the full support received from my
supervisor Dr. Arun Bajracharya and the continuous assistance from library and student services
staff at British University in Dubai (BUiD). Importantly I would also like to appreciate my
mother and father ceaseless support along with my sisters and brothers, my friends and
colleagues. Finally, I would also like to thank each person who contributed directly or indirectly
in this research including all the staff members of the researched university and other
government organizations.
MSc Project Management Studying factors influencing Academic staff Job Satisfaction 110102
Abstract
Higher educationis one of the prioritized sectors in all developed countries around the world. The
quality and achievement for Higher Education Institutions is one of the major concerns of
Ministry of Higher Education and Oman’s 2020 vision to provide the best education to all
citizensof the country. Academic staffs are considered to be one of the main contributors to
achieve Oman’s 2020 vision and hence, this research focuses on identifying the factors that
influences job satisfaction of academic staff in a public university in Oman.
The research methods consist of a wide literature review to identify the most common factors
towards academic staff job satisfaction followed by interview and a set of questionnaire surveys
was carried out in a College of Science at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) as a study sample.
Through correlation and regression analysis, the results and findings of this research show a
positive correlation between remuneration and development, management support, factors
related to students, colleagues, workload and status of the job as independent variables against
the overall job satisfaction as a dependent variable. However, remuneration and development and
factors related to students had a higher contribution towards academic staff overall job
satisfaction. A major recommendation was that, revisiting the promotion policies, a fair
distribution of workload and encouragement towards research productivity and expand on the
relationship of top, mid management and Head of Departments (HOD’s) with academics staff
specifically lecturers who are still new in their careers.
1
‫‪MSc Project Management‬‬ ‫‪Studying factors influencing Academic staff Job Satisfaction‬‬ ‫‪110102‬‬
‫ملخص البحث‬
‫يعتبر التعليم العالي احد أهم القطاعات الذي يلقى أولوية وأهمية كبيرة في جميع الدول المتقدمة حول العالم بما في ذالك سلطنة‬
‫عمان‪ .‬وفي هذا االطار فقد اولت وزارة التعليم العالي العمانية اهتماما كبيرا في جودة التعليم العالي وفي انجازات مؤسسات‬
‫التعليم العالي ضمن رؤية عمان ‪ 0202‬والتي ترتكز على توفير افضل تعليم لجميع المواطنين في السلطنة‪ .‬ومما ال شك فيه‬
‫فان للكادر االكاديمي في الجامعات العامة دور كبير ورئيسي في تحقيق هذه الرؤية وفي تحقيق تطلعات وزارة التعليم العالي‬
‫نحوتعليم عالي أفضل‪ ،‬حيث يعتير أعضاء الهيئة التدريسية من بين احد المساهمين الرئيسيين في تحقيق رؤية عمان التعليمية‬
‫‪ .0202‬وبسبب ندرة الدراسات العلمية التي تتناول موضوع دور المدرسين في منظومة التعليم العالي في سلطنة عمان‪ ،‬فقد‬
‫جاءت هذه الدراسة من اجل القاء الضوء والتعريف بأهم العوامل التي تؤثر على مستوى الرضا الوظيفي لدى الكادر‬
‫االكاديمي (أعضاء هيئة التدريس) في إحدى الجامعات الحكومية في سلطنة عمان وهي جامعة السلطان قابوس كحالة دراسية‬
‫للبحث‪.‬‬
‫لقد تم االعتماد في هذا البحث على االسلوب الوصفي التحليلي والذي يقوم على جمع الحقائق والمعلومات المتعلقة بموضوع‬
‫الدراسة وتحليلها للوصول الى النتائج والتوصيات المتعلقة بهذا الشأن والتي تساعد الى بلوغ الهدف المطلوب من البحث‪ ،‬وفي‬
‫هذا االطار فقد تم مراجعة واستعراض عدد كبير من المراجع وأدبيات الدراسة من أجل تحديد العوامل التي يمكن أن تؤثر‬
‫بشكل كبير على مستوى الرضى الوظيفي لدى الكادر االكاديمي‪ .‬ولغرض هذه الدراسة فقد تم اعداد وتصميم استبيان يتضمن‬
‫عدد من األ سئلة ذات العالقة بموضوع الرضا الوظيفي وبما يحقق األهداف الرئيسية للبحث‪ ،‬والذي تم تعبئته من خالل‬
‫استخدام أسلوب المقابالت الشخصية لعدد من أعضاء الهيئة التدريسية في جامعة السلطان قابوس تم اختيارهم بشكل عشوائي‬
‫من كليه العلوم في الجامعة‪ ،‬وقد تم بعد جمع المعلومات اعداد الجداول االحصائية والتحليل والوصول الى النتائج‪.‬‬
‫لقد اوضحت نتائج هذا البحث الى أن مستوى الرضا الوظيفي لدى الكادر التدريسي بشكل عام في جامعة السلطان قابوس ليس‬
‫بالمستوى العالي لعدة أسباب وعوامل والذي اثر بدوره على مستوى التطلعات فيما يتعلق بالتعليم العالي في سلطنة عمان‪،‬‬
‫حيث أظهرت النتائج الى وجود عالقة ايجابية ذات داللة احصائية بين مستوى الرضا الوظيفي وعدد من العوامل لعل من‬
‫أهمها تنمية األجور ودعم اإلدارة والعوامل المرتبطة بالطالب والعوامل المرتبطة بالزمالء في العمل‪ ،‬وأعباء العمل وغيرها‪،‬‬
‫ولعل تنمية االجور والعوامل المرتبطة بالطالب هي من أكثر العوامل تاثيرا على مستوى الرضا الوظيفي سواء إيجابيا أو‬
‫سلبيا ‪ .‬لقد أوصت هذه الدراسة الى ضرورة إعادة النظر في سياسات الترويج والتوزيع العادل ألعباء العمل بين الموظيفين‬
‫والتشجيع نحو إنتاجية البحوث العلمية من خالل تقوية العالقات بين اإلدارة العليا والمتوسطة كروؤساء األقسام مع الموظفين‬
‫األكاديمين وبالتحديد المحاضرين الذين اليزالوا جدد في حياتهم المهنية‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
Chapter One: Introduction
1 Introduction
The importance of employee’s job satisfaction has been appreciated by many organizations
around the world. The understanding of its impact on achieving organizational goals and
customer satisfaction has been widely witnessed. Employees are those the one who implement
the projects and activities at the operational level in order to implement the objectives of the
management level. Although the goals and objectives vary from an organization to another yet
employees satisfaction is considered to be a common target in all sectors. Job satisfaction had
taken the wide attention of the literature and researchers reviewed it in different sectors and
organizations such as construction industry, IT, health, public services, academic sector etc. and
further identified factors affecting employees’ satisfaction in these organizations. With the
current challenges faced by the developed countries, education comes as priority for
futureexpansion. This research is focusing on exploring the factors affecting employees’ job
satisfaction in the Higher Education Institutes (HEI) due to its significance and contribution to
the economic and social growth of any country. One of the elements to measure the quality of
higher education is the performance of the academic staff. Their level of involvement, effort and
their experience and professionalismdirectly contributes to the success of the education quality
system (Saba, 2001).This research will be focusing on exploring academic job satisfaction in one
of theGulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) Sultanate of Omanto achieve a higher quality system in
Higher Education.
1.1 History and background

Geographically, the Sultanate of Oman is located in the Arabian Gulf, at the extreme east and
south-east of the Arabian Peninsula. Like any other countries, Oman’s education policies play a
major part in economic globalization on human resource development (Donn and Issan, 2007).
Providing a good quality education for all citizens in the sultanate, was one of the major
concerns of his Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said in specific after the Renaissance year in 1970’s.
Prior to the Renaissance, only three schools were existed serving the communities of the whole
country. The number of schools had increased from three up to 588 schools 1985 and doubled up
to 1,053 schools by the end year of 2006/7. Due to this dramatically change and education
development, the higher education in Oman had also grown rapidly and introduced Higher
3
Education Institution in 1986, Oman’s premier University, the Sultan Qaboos University. In the
case of private higher education, the number of colleges had increased form one college in 1995
and up to 2009 twenty four private colleges and university and an approximate of 33,521
students enrolled in these institutes and nearly 12,000 of students are studying abroad (Al
Shmeli, 2009). The increase number of graduate students every year and the demand of Higher
Education has been dramatically witnessed in the Sultanate and therefore, the demand of human
resources is also to be considered.
The input of human resource in higher education hugely contributes to the overall performance
of the institutes, students and the community. Full commitment can be achieved through happy
employees and happy employee is when job satisfaction isrealized (Aziri, 2011).
1.2 Research problem

Employees’ job satisfaction has a direct relationship with a number of elements that can create
negative or positive consequences. These elements are such as customer satisfaction, employee’s
turnover, employees’ health related issues, quality of education etc.In the context of higher
education an increase demand of academic staff in higher education has been observed and
expected to continue increasing (Machado-Taylor et al, 2010). Therefore, academics are an
exclusive group that is worth studying about along with its impact on the elements mentioned
earlier (Schulze, 2006). For example, a study was conducted by Randhawa (2007) and results
showed a negative correlation between employees job satisfaction and employees turnover. The
number of employees who have the intention to resign their jobs had lowered when their level of
satisfaction was increased.
In the United Kingdom (UK), a study was carried out that aims to investigate the occupational
stressors and strains amongst the academics working in UK universities. Comparing to other
sectors and professions the study had found that, academic staff have scored the less level of
satisfaction and therefore, lowered the level of their psychological health (Kinman, 2001).
Customer satisfaction (students) is another critical aspect to be considered. As confirmed
through a study by Machado-Taylor et al (2010) in Portugal, that aims to identify issues and
related impacts towards academic staff job satisfaction, the teaching faculties’ job satisfaction
has a direct correlation and contribution to student satisfaction and learning. In terms of the
quality of academics, Comm and Mathaisal (2003) have evaluated a job satisfaction for teaching
4
faculties at small colleges based on certain elements such as workload, salary and benefits. The
findings revealed that, faculties’ had low commitment to their work in which had a negative
impact on the quality of academics and colleges.
In the case of Gulf Cooperation countries (GCC) studies on academic faculties job satisfaction is
lacking. However, one study has been found in kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) aims to evaluate
the job satisfaction among the academic staff King Faisal University in Dammam. The study was
carried out against a number of elements such as supervision, responsibility, interpersonal
relationships, salary, the work itself etc. and it has been found that, the level of job satisfaction
was low mainly due to demographic features (Al- Rubaish et al, 2009).
Issues related to the academic job satisfaction and its negative or positive relations are
uncountable. Its importance does not only rest on the identification of these issues, but also looks
at measuring the level of its impact and how can it befurther enhanced. In order to overcome
these issues and take the necessary measures it is suggested to first identify the factors and
elements that influences the job satisfaction in the academic sectors. Therefore, this research
aims answer the following questions:
What are the factors affecting the job satisfaction of academic staff in higher education institutes
in Oman? And how can it be measured and improved?
1.3Research importance
In the context of Sultanate of Oman Education is a critical issue to be considered further for its
quality and development. The country is witnessing a number of challenges especially after the
introduction of some policies related to human resources and economic growth such as the
localization policy (Omanisation). In the light of Oman 2020 vision his Majesty Sultan Qaboos
famously said:
"Let there be education even if it is under the shades of trees”.
(Ministry of Higher Education, 2013).
Thus, the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) on the behalf of Oman’s government, is
constantly striving towards achieving ahigh quality in higher educationin order to meet and
satisfy the requirements of a sustainable development of the country. Job satisfaction is
5
considered to be one of the approaches to achieve the goal of MoHE as it contributes to the staff
performance, student satisfaction and learning, Institute performance, development and quality.
1.4 Research aim and objectives
The focal aim of this research is to explore the factors affecting teaching faculties' job
satisfaction in Higher Education Institutes of the academic sector in the Sultanate of Oman.
General objectives
1. To review the importance and status of Higher Education Institutes in Oman,

2. To examine the job satisfaction concept and its significance to academic staff in HEI’s
3. To review the general factors that influences the job satisfaction of academic staff in
HEI’s,
Specific objectives
4. To assess the above identified job satisfaction factors on HEI’s in Oman,

5. To measure the level of academic staff job satisfaction,
6. To propose some recommendations andprovide ways of improvement.
1.5 Research scope
Employees’ job satisfaction is a common aspect that can be implemented and studied in any
organization or sector and in any country. However, for the purpose of this research the study
will be specific to teaching faculties of higher education institutes in the academic sector in the
Sultanate of Oman. It focuses on investigating factors that influences academic staff job
satisfaction. The direction of this research is selected because of the minimum attention of such
study in Oman and therefore, created a gap in the literature. Furthermore, due to the limited size
of the research and time availability, the study will be carried out at HEI’s in Muscat; Sultanate
of Oman.
1.6Research structure
Chapter one(Introduction)-The first chapter is the introduction chapter which aims to introduce
the background, problem and the importance of the selected topic for this research followed by
the aim, objectives, questions and key words and definitions.
6
Chapter two(Literature review) - This chapter aims to expand on the information provided in
the first chapter by reviewing the literature of academic staff job satisfaction. The headings of
this chapter have been divided by following the research objectives in order to meet the overall
research aim. This chapter starts reviewing the importance and status of higher education in
Oman, significance of academic job satisfaction in higher education and finallyreviewing the
factors that influences the academic job satisfaction.
Chapter three(conceptual framework) - this chapter is considered to be a continuous process of

the literature review in which a conceptual framework will be developed that includes dependent
and independent variables. The framework will be created through a combination factors
identified from the literature and an additional factors will be explored through an exploratory
qualitative data approach which will be collected by interviewing a number academic staff from
College of Science in a public university in Oman.
Chapter four(Methodology)- this chapter is the research methodology section in which aims to
measure the level of academics job satisfaction against the factors and sub-factors that have been
presented in the conceptual framework. A quantitative methodology approach will be utilized by
circulating an electronic questionnaire survey to the academics at College of Science.
Chapter five(Survey findings: discussion, analysis and synthesis)-the results obtained from the
questionnaire survey will be presented in this chapter. It will be further analyzed through the
SPSS software and discover the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
Chapter six (conclusion and recommendation)-a summary and conclusion derived from the
results analysis and discussion will be presented in this chapter. This chapter will further points
to answer the research questions that have been presented in chapter one.Furthermore, it aims to
offer some recommendations and to improve the level of job satisfaction of academic faculty
membersin Oman. Finally, this chapter will end up with some proposals of future research in
order to sustain academic staff in Higher Education Institutes in the Sultanate of Oman.
7
Chapter Two: Review of Literature

2 Introduction
A literature review aims to present, evaluates and summarizes studies of previous researchers
that are relevant, significant, meaningful and valid to a particular topic. It further aims to review
the current knowledge in the selected field and some researchers’ findings along with their
agreements and arguments in order to justify the proposed research. The flow and structure of
this chapter will be presented and divided into subsections and tittles by following the research
objectives in order to achieve the overall research aim.
As this research focuses on identifying factors that influences academic staff job satisfaction at
HEI in Oman, the first sectionof this chapter will evaluate and review the importance and status
of Higher Education Institutes in Oman as the first objective.
2.1 The importance and status of Higher Education in Oman

The importance of higher education in the sultanate of Oman can be grasped from His Majesty
Sultan Qaboos Speech 33rd session of the general conference of UNESCO Paris in 2005 when he
said:
“We devote great care and attention to the development and reform of education in Oman. Our
aims include the raising of standards and updating the curriculum to make it richer and more
relevant to the needs of an ever changing world. These efforts recognize the importance the
Sultanate assigns to the development of its human resources, to the fostering of scientific and
technological understanding and the creation of an educated population who can make a
positive contribution to the development process by dealing confidently with change and new
developments.” (Ministry of Higher Education, 2013)
2.1.1 Development of human resources (Omanisation)
The government of Oman has introduced a localization policy called "Omanization" (Rees,
2007). The Omanization policy is not a new phenomenon as it has been introduced in the
sultanate since in 1988. However, this policy does not only target to create jobs for citizens, it
also focuses on lowering the dependence on expatriates in search of self-reliance in Human
Resources (HR).
8
Human resource is one the basic dimensions of Oman’s 2020 vision and considered to be part of
the pre-requisites elements to achieve Oman’s vision. Consequently, it is a vitalmatter that
requires a closer attention in both private and public sectors. In Royal Speeches of his Majesty
Sultan Qaboos bin Said frequently stressed the need to develop scientific, technical and
vocational capabilities of the Omani human resources in order to enable them to play a
remarkable role in the comprehensive development witnessed by the country in various
economic fields. Oman government aims to develop the human resources strategy by considering
improvements on vocational training, higher education, health services and the labor market (The
vision of Oman’s economy, Oman2020).
In terms of higher education, Taha (2011) emphasized that; the higher education is a very critical
issue that should be aligned with the Omani job market. Therefore, the MoHE has taken
significant steps in developing higher education infrastructure through the creation of university
institutions and providing opportunities for Omani students in a range of academic and scientific
disciplines that meets the needs of the labor market (Ministry of Higher Education, 2013).
Today the Sultanate of Oman is going through many changes and challenges and the higher
education plays a major role in developing the socioeconomic development of the country (Al
Lamki, 2010). The latter had further stated that, the inconsistency of the number of secondary
school graduates had appeared in which limits the higher education opportunities.
9
The vision for Oman’s Economy: Oman 2020
The vision Human Resources Development
HR
development HR Policies and
HR Challenges
strategy and its Mechanisms
dimensions
 The weakness and inadequacy of basic education

to cope with the rapidly changing scientific and
technological development
 The increasing demand of basic services such as,
health, education, housing etc.
 Dissemination, encouragement, and patronage of

knowledge and the development of education
 Establishing a post-secondary and technical
education system based on the provision of the
main specializations required by the national
economy.
 Encouragement and motivation of the University

Staff to conduct research and studies, and
provide consultation services in all academic
fields to all developmental sectors of the country.
 Continuance of scholarships for the Omani staff
and researchers of Sultan Qaboos University in
order to meet the University requirements of
qualified scientific cadres of faculty members.
Figure 1The importance of Higher Education in Oman

(The vision of Oman’s economy, Oman2020)
Therefore, the importance and status of higher education in Oman can be seen through the
Oman’s 2020 vision as shown above in figure 1 that requires further considerations and
development. One of the ways to achieve the higher education quality and face human resource
challenges is through providing the good teachings via competent and happy academic staff.
10
2.2 Understanding the concept of Job Satisfaction

It has been agreed in the wide literature that, job satisfaction concept is complex and difficult to
describe (Hagedorn, 2000). However, with more than 10,000+ studies on job satisfaction
researchers are striving towards an appropriate definition and a clear understanding of job
satisfaction (Strydom, 2011). Job satisfaction has a direct link with motivation but the
relationship between them is not yet clearandthey are considered to be two different concepts
(Usop et al, 2013). Job satisfaction is not only linked to motivation, it is also related with
increased effectiveness, reduced absenteeism and lower staff turnover (Alqashan, 2013).In order
to further understand the concept of job satisfaction some definitions from the literature have
been considered.
The job satisfaction concept was first defined by Hoppock (1935), where he explains job
satisfaction to be a mix of psychological, physical and environmental aspects that leads a person
to say I am satisfied with my job (Bernard, 2012). It can also be described to be as, the attitude
and feelings that employees have towards their job (Usop et al, 2013; Armstrong, 1996; Blum
and Naylor, 1968). It can also be conveyed through liking and disliking some elements of the
jobs such, work itself, pay rewards, promotions, recognition and working condition (Usop et al,
2013). Blum and Naylor (1968) agrees to these elements but have added other elements such as
control, social relations in the work, recognition of talent, personal characteristics and group
relations apart from the work life. Spector (2003) argues that, job satisfaction is not only when
linking or disliking the work itself but it is also related to the extent (level of satisfaction) in
which people like their jobs.
Garland et al (2009) captured different view of job satisfaction and had related the individual-
level feeling to whether a person need ismet or not being met by a particular job. Other
researchers have argued that job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience but not stating any negative emotional
state(Locke, 1976; Armstrong, 1996).This was the most job satisfaction accepted definition in
the literature (Bernard, 2012). Nevertheless, other researchers claimthat, also negative attitude
should be considered which also reflects the term of dissatisfaction (Armstrong, 1996).
11
Job satisfaction also can be seen through the success and achievement of employees on their
jobs. It has been directly linked to the productivity, personal well-being, enthusiasm and
happiness with one’s work (Kaliski, 2007).
In a logical sequence a successful employee is a happy employee and a happy employee is when
job satisfaction has been met which explains the importance to consider job satisfaction in the
working place (Aziri, 2011).
2.3 The significance of academic staff job satisfaction in HEI

The importance of academic staff job satisfaction can be observed through different dimensions
and various aspects. For example, Machado-Taylor et al(2011) explains the importance of
satisfaction and motivation of faculty members in colleges due to its contribution to the HEI and
society through their performance which determines the level of student satisfaction and
influences student learning process. It has been further confirmed by Wong (2009) research that,
employee’s satisfaction had really influenced the overall operation of an organization as well
ashugely agreed in the earlier literature. The quality of the academic can be improved through
the enhanced performance of faculty members that can be achieved through competitive levels of
compensations that colleges and universities can offer to them (Comm and Mathaisel, 2003).
When such compensations are not taking into consideration, the faculty members may start to
feel stressed and therefore a low level of satisfaction at their working place occurs. This also
leads to frustration and causes problems when dealing with peers or customers and not being
happy to work in the organization (Ahsan et al, 2009).
The job satisfaction is also important for the administrative department because it helps them to
review the existing motivational policies and procedures aiming to improve work performance
for them and for academic employees (Usop, 2013)
In terms of other dimensions such as organizational budget, Juwaheer and Nunkoo (2010) stated
that, the HEI budgets are mainly devoted to personnel. Their effectiveness is largely depending
on their employees; therefore, they have further confirmed the importance of employees’
satisfaction in higher education in this regard.
Aziri (2011) stated that, the significance of job satisfaction can be also seen through the negative
consequences that might result from not being satisfied in the job. The latter mentions some
negative consequences to be such as, lack of loyalty, turnover and increased absenteeism.
12
The significance of job satisfaction has also been witnessed through past theories that will be
discussed and reviewed in the next section of this chapter.
2.4 Theories on Job Satisfaction

The Job satisfaction concept is not new. It has been researched since nineteenth century and
during World War II in order to enhance the effectiveness of the organization as well as
individuals (Strydom, 2011). Then theories on motivation and job satisfaction of employees in
their working place have emerged such as Herzberg or two-factor theory and Maslow’s theory.
2.4.1 Herzberg or two-factor theory

Herzberg theory or also called two factor theory is considered to be the most popular theory
utilized and tested in the literature. This theory addresses the job satisfaction in two ways;
factors that causes satisfaction (motivators or intrinsic factors) and factors that causes
dissatisfaction (Hygiene or extrinsic factors) (Noell, 1976). The argument of this theory is that, if
hygiene factors are found to be satisfactory the feeling of dissatisfaction will be removed but
does not assure the existence of motivation. Motivation has its own set of requirements
(motivators) for its achievements such as achievement, advancement, work itself, recognition
and responsibility (Bernard, 2010) (refer to figure 1).
Extrinsic factors (Hygiene)

 Salary
 Supervision
 Relationship
 Policy
 Working condition Job
Satisfaction
Intrinsic factors (Motivator)
 Achievement
 Advancement
 Work itself
 Recognition
 Responsibility
Figure 2Herzberg theory – job satisfaction model
(Mehboob et al, 2011)
2.4.2 Maslow’s theory

The Maslow’s theory has a different way of analyzing people’s satisfaction than Herzberg’s
theory. Maslow’s theory is divided into five various levels of human needs hierarchy in which
lower level should be first considered. Maslow’s argues that, unless the lower level of hierarchy
13
is met then the next upper level should be considered towards satisfaction (Bernard, 2012)(refer
to figure 2).
Self-
actualization
Esteem
Social needs
Security
Physical needs
Figure 3Maslow's theory

(Strydom, 2011)
For example, if the physiological basic needs such as food, water, oxygen, sleep etc. are not
achieved then the safety needs such as physical safety, health, financial security etc. will not be
met unless the lower level is achieved and similar concept applies to all levels. Another example
is the social needs level which includes friendship, feeling of love, family etc. will be not be met
unless the level of safety is achieved and satisfied (Strydom, 2011).
2.5 Factors influencingacademic staff job satisfaction in higher education

Identification of factors influencing the job satisfaction is essential for the best practice of human
resources management. Many researches and studies have considered identifying these factors in
different countries for various colleges and universities. For example, Ghaffar et al (2013)
conducted a study that aims to analyze the level of job satisfaction against various elements of
academic staff in the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. The findings showed that, pay level
scored the highest important factor, security, promotion opportunities and ultimately coworkers
ranked least important factors orderly. Another research was conducted in a local college in
Kuching, with 81 full and part time academic faculties, one staff was fully satisfied 1.24%, 71
staff were averagely satisfied 87.65% and 9 staff had the lowest level of satisfaction 11.11%
(Yong, 2002). The latter in the study had measure the level of satisfaction through factors such
as, knowledge, control psychological, financial and task that had a positive correlation in
14
whichpsychological and financial elements had mostly played a major role in affecting their job
satisfaction. Another study was investigated in South Africa that focuses on job satisfaction in
higher education of the academics in the times of transformation and the results indicated that,
most of responders were satisfied with their work (Schulze, 2006). The study had measured the
level of academic satisfaction based on factors such as teaching, research, community service,
administration and the author also considered the influence of demographics information on the
job satisfaction of the academics.
One of the un-pleasant outcomes that an institute might face when their staffs are not satisfied is
staff retention and turnover. For example, due to the notable staff retention in tertiary Institutes
of Botswana, Bernard (2012) carried out a research that reviews the motivation theories
alongside job satisfaction, organizational commitment and employee engagement and the results
indicates that, both extrinsic and intrinsic factors were very critical to staff motivation and
satisfaction. In the case of USA, Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) have conducted a study to identify
factors that affects the academic job satisfaction in a different environment. They have
considered basing their study on online teaching faculties and divided their factors into three
parts; student related, instructor related and institute related factors and the results confirms its
affect. In other countries such as China the English language is considered to be a second
language and it is important to be well taught and delivered to students. Ma (2012) conducted a
study on a group of English Languages lectures because their level of motivation was low and
level of dissatisfaction was high. The results indicated that, the level of their motivation was
mostly influenced by their personal experiences and varied sense of competence relatedness and
autonomy. In regards to their personal experiences and contextual aspects the factors were
identified to be the Chinese’s culture influence, societal context and organizational climate.
Other studies have aimed to test the level of employees satisfaction based on some of the job
satisfaction theories. For example, Malik (2011) have conducted a study to measure the level of
academic staff in University of Balchiston by using two theories; Herzberg job motivator and
hygiene factors. The overall results indicate that, faculty members were satisfied with their jobs
in which most of the satisfied members were females. The higher level of satisfaction was on the
work itself factor and the least scored was on the working condition.Nevertheless, other factors
did not score any significant relationship with job satisfaction in this university such as
15
demographic characteristics.Similar results was achieved by Tu et al (2005) which aimed to

compare the level of satisfaction between Taiwanese and Chinese faculty members at colleges in
terms of age, and the findings shows no significance between the age and job satisfaction.
On the other hand, Sadedhi et al (2012) had a contradicting result in their research at Malaysian
research Universities, which findings shows that the demographic characteristics such as age,
gender etc. had a direct relationship with employee’s job satisfaction at the moderate level
whereas the level of education did not have any. This is also was supported by Toker (2009) in
Turkey, were the research findings also indicates a moderate to high level of job satisfaction of
academicians in relation to demographic characteristics.
As there are numerous factors contributing to the level of job satisfaction of academics in higher
education, it can be concluded that there isn’t any best model to be followed however, an
appropriate model can be developed based on the context of the intended research (Chen et al,
2006). However, prior to the model development of the present research, models from the
literature will be considered as shown below.
2.6 Models on job Satisfaction

Based on the above discussion on the factors affecting the job satisfaction of academic staff in
higher education, various models derived from the literature will be discussed in this section.
The first model has been offered by Chen et al (2006) in his study that aimed to evaluate
employees’ dissatisfaction based on various elements. The main factors that influenced the
teacher job satisfaction were; work environment, pay and benefits, management systems, result
feedback and motivation, respect and organization vision1. The results showed that, academics
interest and attention and was on high salaries and fair promotion systems.
On the other hand Awang and Ahmed (2010) have conducted a study that aimed at establishing
the impact of job satisfaction of university lecturers on their commitment towards their academic
tasks. The authors have considered studying the factors that contributes the job satisfaction in
order to achieve to the intended aim of the research. The areas found in this study that influenced
the academic staff job satisfaction were; Potential, remuneration, environment, workload,
1
Refer to appendix 2b. for all models
16
relationship and management. The study confirms that there was no relationship between job
satisfaction and work commitment however, the results shows a direct influence between job
satisfaction with some factors such as promotional opportunities, workload and relationship with
colleagues.
Another model on job satisfaction of academic staff in the Islamia University of Bahawalpur was
developed by Ghaffar et al (2013) that aimed to investigate the level of their satisfaction. The
model consists of attitudes towards the job satisfaction such as salary, working condition,
promotional opportunities and job security. The research findings have mostly agreed with
Chenet al as the pay level scored the most important factor and other factors such as security,
promotion opportunities and co-workers scored the least important.
As it has been reviewed in the previous section Yong (2002) had investigated the factors
affecting the level of job satisfaction of staff academic at a local college in Kuching. The author
in his study measured the job satisfaction against two items; demographic and factors influencing
job satisfaction. The areas influencing job satisfaction model includes knowledge, control,
psychology, financial and task. Nevertheless,Strydom (2011) had found six main clusters that
influence academic staff job satisfaction in which he also agrees with Yong study in regards to
the financial security but also added that, emotional wellbeing, autonomy, physical resources,
challenges and accomplishments are also the main contributors towards job satisfaction.
In addition to the above models, another job satisfaction model was developed by Saba and Zafar
(2013) and their research aimed at exploring the of job satisfaction of teachers in both private
and public universities in Pakistan. The study had almost agreed with other authors in some
factors and the model consist of five main factors and they are; work itself, salary, promotion
opportunities, working condition and job security. The result of the study had showed a positive
correlation between the factors and job satisfaction.
Rehman et al (2013) and Khalid et al(2012) have agreed upon similar factors that influences academic
staff in their studies. Khalid et al (2012) result indicates variances of factors and job satisfaction of both
private and public universities. In terms of the public universities it has been found that, the academic
staffs are more satisfied in their relationship with their colleagues and job security. The studies included
the following factors; work, pay, supervision, promotion, co-workers and work environment.
17
Work environment was one of the most common factors derived from the literature models and so was
agreed by Alhawary and Aborumman (2011) study. The latter aimed to test whether academic
satisfaction (university vision, respect and recognition, relationship with colleagues, teamwork,
incentives, management support and salary) has an effect on university commitment. The
findings shows that in an overall the academics have a statistical significant effect on overall
university commitment against the job satisfaction identified factors (University vision, respect
and recognition, relationship with colleagues, teamwork, incentives, work environment and
management support).
This chapter can be summarized by stating that, the understanding and the significance of
academic staff job satisfaction had beenexamined and discussed. Furthermore, the factors that
said having an impact on academic job satisfaction have also been listed and identified. In
addition to that,the present research also considers presenting the common models found in the
literature that will be further analyzed and finalized in the next chapter of conceptual framework
including some exploration on local factors towards academic staff job satisfaction.
18
Chapter three: Conceptual framework

3 Introduction
Due to the complexity in describing the concept of job satisfaction concept, there isn’t any
complete or accurate conceptual model to base any research on (Hagedorn, 2000). The main
focus of this research is to identify factors that influence university academic employees’ job
satisfaction in Oman. Due to the lack of such studies in Oman, the researcher had developed and
shaped the conceptual framework model through two main stages as shown below in figure 12.
1) Models from the literature and,

2) Exploratory qualitative approach.
Conceptual framework
Qualitative Models from

approach Literature
Interviews Models on job

with academic satisfaction
faculties
Identification of factors
Figure 4 Approach to Conceptual framework
(Developed by the researcher)
3.1 Factors derived from the literature

As stated in the above section there are various factors that influence academic staff job
satisfaction. Some major models have been derived from the literature in order to help the
researcher to form the conceptual framework in this research. These factors have been
summarized (refer to appendix two) and the most common factors is presented belowin figure
13. This has been also supported by Dabre et al (2012), when they mentioned that work itself,
pay, promotion opportunities, working conditions, job security and coworkers were the most
important factors that impact academic staff job satisfaction.
19
pay
Supervision
, HOD work
behaviour environemnt
Academic
Job
satisfaction
Management promotional
system opportunities
job
security
Figure5Major factors derived from the literature

3.2 Factors explored through the qualitative data

A long with the literature review a qualitative data approach has been considered to explore more
contextualized factors that may influence academic staff job satisfaction in Oman. The
researcher had conducted a semi structured interviews with six academic staff from the College
of Science in a public university in Oman. These interviews were conducted to provide an insight
into the factors affecting the academics in the local context of Oman and to expand on the
literature and past researchers. The interview lasted for 45 minutes with each interviewee and
the conversation were written and noted. The data collected from the interviews have been
analyzed through following the steps listed below:
o The researcher had read over the data collected, understood all the information provided
and classified the data in subtitles,
o Open coding where the data have been broken down, examined , compared, themed and
categorized,
o Axil coding where relationship between the categories of data relating concepts by
linking codes to contexts.
20
o Selective coding it is a procedure to select the core categories in which will be analyzed
and discussed below.
3.2.1 Factors related to remuneration and development

Pay and Salary
“…The payment packages are not competitive comparing to other international universities.
Many of my colleagues have resigned due to the same issue they got a better offer and therefore
they have resigned…”
Promotions
“…I am happy with the research and publication I am doing well in that and as according to the
university regulations the promotion is related to research activities only which is kind of good
but at the same time it limits other activities to be included for our promotions…”(Interview with
academic staff No. 4)
“…The teaching activity can be weighted as 70%, administration 20% and research 10% in
which promotion is directly related to the research activity only which is not balanced and does
not make any sense…”(Interview with academic staff no. 6)
3.2.2Factors related to students

Through the interviews conducted it has been found out that, students play a major role in
making academics happy in their jobs. The identified elements that are related to students are
such as; student achievements and success, student interaction and mentoring, staff recognition
by students and working in project with students.
Student interaction and mentoring
Interacting and building a good relationship with students is considered to be one of the
significant issues for HEI’s because students are the final users and customers. In the view of
academic staff the interaction with students has a deeper and more valuable meaning such as
solving their academic problems in which makes them feel happy and satisfied.
“….I feel very good talking to students and solve their academic problems….”(Interview with
And others stated that:
21
“…A successful academic staff should not keep a distance from students they should have more
interactions with students but of course with some limitations…” (Interview with academic staff
No. 3)
“…I like dealing with younger generation and passing messages and knowledge to the
students…”(Interview with academic staff No. 6)
“….I have good relationship with students and give them enough time to ask questions
specifically in the class it’s a process of give and take…”(Interview with academic staff No. 2)
It has been stated by Mahboob et al (2011) that Hill (1986) confirmed that, mentoring and
ministering students are considered to be one of the major origins of job satisfaction among
academic staff.
Student achievements and success
The correlation between student achievements and success has also been witnessed in the
literature. Along with the support of other researchers Noordin (2009) stated that, the variance of
academic staff job satisfaction can be observed through satisfaction in student achievements.
“…student achievement is a mirror of their success…”(Interview with academic staff No. 3)
“…I teach therefore when I feel students following my advice in how they study, student
achievement translate my success…”(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
“…I would advise each academic staff to consider having a good attitude, good relationship
with students…” (Interview with academic staff No. 2)
Staff recognition by students
Unlike other professions, academics do not only receive recognition from the management they
also feel much better when they receive student recognition appreciating their way of teaching
and efforts.
“…I also love my job more when I see myself successful through the success of students they
appreciate my effort as an academic…”
“…the level of students that you are teaching, appreciating you work, recognition by your
students and encouragement…” (Interview with academic staff No. 3)
22
3.2.3Factors related to colleagues

The relationship between academics and their colleagues is vital. Through the interview it has
been confessed by most of interviewees that teamwork was lacking in their department. The
researcher had also observed the disappointment of academic staff when discussing about their
relationship with their colleagues. The factors extracted from interviews that are related to their
colleagues were such as; having a good attitude, interest in teaching, team working,
communication and culture.
Attitude
“…I came to this job out of my attitude in the cost of other jobs, attitude and interest is the most
important things for me to be happy as an academic staff. No material should be considered and
the love of this job comes from interest. No material should be considered and the love of this job
comes from interest…” (Interview with academic staff No.2)
This also has been mentioned in the earlier studies, some researchers have described job
satisfaction to be as an employee’s general attitude towards their job (Yong, 2002). Job attitude
was also one of the factors that have been found by Herzberg theory in 1959 (Castillo and Cano,
2004).
Interest in teaching
“…I have graduated from this university and then worked as an academic immediately after my
completion of MSc and PhD studies and I like teaching…” (Interview with academic staff No. 5)
“…I like the teaching filed I find myself as an academic…” (Interview with academic staff No.6)
Team working
Some of the staff academics were un-happy towards the status and relationship with their
colleagues. The lack of cooperation, communication had a major impact on their feeling and
their job.
“…Another point is the lack of team working. Most of my colleagues probably miss understand
the meaning of teamwork it’s not only a physical action it’s an art that everyone has to share and
work together with using our mind too…” (Interview with academic staff No.3)
“…My other concerns is the teamwork, I feel we are lacking of team working which also helps us
to be more productive…”(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
23
Communication and culture
“…Also the academic environment is good with good communication and culture…”(Interview
with academic staff No. 3)
3.2.4Factors related to the management support

The factors that were related to management were such as; long committee meetings,
management system and administration, availability of resources, administration activities, poor
and bad managers, no acknowledgment, needs have not been met, work appreciation, awards,
grants, university appreciation, promotion, limited facilities and resources available, full support
from the management.
Long committee meetings
“…Also we have long committee meetings during semester time, these meetings are affecting my
research time and process…” (Interview with academic staff No. 1)
Management system and administration activities
In regards to the management system and administration work, all interviews have agreed that,
their job as an academic is beyond teaching. Their job also includes, marking assignments and
grading, research and administrative work in which they have found it difficult to balance all
these activities and implement all together at the same time.
“…Sometimes the administration issues for example you have to go through a long process to
get something approved the management system and administration…”(Interview with academic
staff No. 2)
“…My job is not only teaching and research it also includes administration activities…”
(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
“…I am less comfortable with the administration work because I don’t have enough time to
carry out all the works at the same time…” (Interview with academic staff No. 5)
“…The administration work takes much of our time…”(Interview with academic staff No. 6)
24
Line managers and HOD’s
“…I have not been well appreciated about my work and commitment by my line manager. Poor
and bad managers can influence the staff job satisfaction and they have to meet my
needs…”(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
Acknowledgment and appreciation
The acknowledgment and appreciation is not limited to the top management or the university as
a whole, it is also related to the direct line manager and students.
“…I use to come to my office early and leave late but when my work was not appreciated I have
decided to resign…”(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
“…I also love my job more when I see myself successful through the success of students they
appreciate my effort as an academic and I was appreciated by the university as being the best
academic staff which makes me feel happy…”(Interview with academic staff No. 3)
Facilities provided from the management
“…Lack of academic staff club is an issue to me as working in an international university where

the club facility is not available…”
3.2.5Factors related to the workload
The factors that were related to the work itself were such as; grading and assignments marking,
affects time to do some other work, research, publications, work and commitment, teaching and
research, workload, working environment in here is not encouraging, payment packages are not
competitive and academic environment.
Research and publications
“…Well, we have to spend a lot of time in research because that adds more value to the
university …”(Interview with academic staff No. 1)
“…I am happy with the research and publication I am doing well in that…”(Interview with
“…I like teaching, research and publications…”(Interview with academic staff No. 5)
25
“…The environment in here is not encouraging for research…”(Interview with academic staff
No. 6)
Teaching
“…I like the teaching filed I find myself as an academic. The teaching activity can be weighted
as 70% of my time…”(Interview with academic staff No. 6)
3.2.6Factors related to status of the job

Social stability and family settlement is a priority factor for being happy at work for expatriate
however, in terms of local academics they have different view as locals.
Family packages and offers
“…The family package is limited in terms of higher education for my kids, the university allows
a limited number of seats and the applicants have to compete for it…” (Interview with academic
staff No. 3)
Status of academics around their families
“…One of the things that make me less happy is the social stability. It is very important for me to
be around my family and give them all the required support…” (Interview with academic staff
No. 3)
Status of academics in Omani society
“… I love Oman I feel comfortable dealing with locals, they are very friendly and I have never
felt as a guest since I arrived I feel that I become one of them…”
Working environment
“…The environment in here is not encouraging for research…”(Interview with academic staff
No. 6)
“…Also the academic environment is good with good communication and culture…”
3.3 Research conceptual framework

The research conceptual framework has been formed through a mixture of themajor factors that
have been derived from the literature and the factors that have been categorized from the
qualitative data (interviews). The identified factors from the literature had fallen under the core
categories and themes of factors that have been analyzed from the interviews. The final
conceptual model is shown below in figure 14. The model consists of dependent and independent
26
variables. This research aims to identify factors that influence job satisfaction of academic staff
in HEI in Oman. The researcher had considered forming the conceptual framework of
independent variables by splitting it into two categories: tangible and intangible variables. The
job satisfaction is considered to be the dependent variable, remuneration and development is
acting as the tangible variable and management support, students, colleagues, workload and
status of job are considered to be the intangible independent variables. Each independent variable
will also be divided into sub-elements that will aid the researcher to proceed further with this
study and clarify these factors through utilizing another methodology (Quantitative approach)
targeting the same sample, College of Science.
The elements of these factors will be further summarized and finalized to be used in the survey
questionnaire and will be scaled using five level of likert scale (5=Highly Satisfied, 4=Satisfied,
3=partially satisfied,2=Not satisfied, 1=Not at all Satisfied). The results will be further analyzed
through the statistical software SPSS.
Management
support
Colleagues Students
Status of Workload
the job
Job
Satisfaction
Remuneration
and development
Figure6 Conceptual framework design

27
As it is shown in the above figure, the six constructs of independent variables (remuneration and
development and management, students, colleagues, workload and status of the job) are to be
tested against the dependent variable (job satisfaction). The constructs are measured through sub
elements and items that are derived from the literature and interviews as shown in the below
table.
Independent Construct Factors considered

variables
Remuneration and o Pay and salary

development o Benefits
o Research funds
o
variables
Promotion
Tangible
o Additional income
o conference attendance
Management support o Appreciation and recognition

o Teamwork activities
o Facilities provided
o Non-academic social activities
o Relationship with line manager / HOD / supervisor
Students o Interaction with your students

o Student mentoring
o Students achievement
o Acknowledgement and recognition
o Students level of knowledge
Intangible variables
o Working in projects with students
Colleagues o Colleagues attitude towards their job

o Support from colleagues in individual activities
o colleagues interest in teaching
o Academic communication
o Personal relationship with colleagues
o Overall team work activities
Workload o Encouragement towards research activities

o publications
o Teaching
o assignments marking and grading
o The level of workload
o The number of meetings
o Time spent on administration work and activities
28
Status of job o Status in academic circle

o Family package and offers
o Pleasantness of work environment
o Overall status of being an academic
Table 1Conceptual framework breakdown

The above conceptual framework summarizes the aim of this research in which intends to study
the factors that influences the academic job satisfaction in a public university in Oman. At this
stage of the research, the research hypothesis can be clearly stated. To fold up this chapter the
following research hypothesis will be tested, discussed and analyzed in the next chapters.
H1: There is a significant relationship between remuneration and development towards academic
staff job satisfaction.
H2: There is a significant relationship between management supports towards academic staff job
satisfaction.
H3: There is a significant relationship between students towards academic staff job satisfaction.
H4: There is a significant relationship between colleagues towards academic staff job
satisfaction.
H5: There is a significant relationship between workload towards academic staff job satisfaction.
H6: There is a significant relationship between status of the job towards academic staff job
satisfaction.
29
Chapter four: Research Methods
4 Introduction
This chapter aims to present the research methods that have been considered and utilized by the
researcher to gather the empirical data towardsconcluding and answering the research questions
for this study. Objective (5) will take this research one step further that compares the theory with
research practice which will gain a fuller evidence and support.
In the review of the literature in chapter two, a gap has been identified in the existing research in
that there was sufficient evidence on the need of studying the factors that influences academic
staff job satisfaction in Oman.
The research methods chapter will provide a detail of a research strategy adopted in order to
address the research issues identified above, along with the means of collecting data for analysis
including the data analysis framework and finally addressing the limitations or problems faced in
the practical research.
4.1 Research strategies

There are various research strategies that can be adopted for a research. The selection of an
appropriate strategy will be based on the aim and research direction in order to fulfill research
objectives. Research strategies are such as; case studies, survey, ethnography, experimental
research, historical research, action research and grounded theory. For the purpose of this
research the overall strategy considered to be utilized is the survey.
4.1.1 Justification on the selected research strategy

The appropriate research strategy was found to be the survey through questionnaires and
interviews through a semi structured questions. The selection on the selected strategies can be
justified by referring it to the research questions. This research intends to answer what and how
questions as shown below.
What are the factors affecting the job satisfaction of academic staff in higher education institutes
in Oman? And how can it be measured and improved?
Therefore, the ‘What’ question aims to explore the factors affecting academic staff job
satisfaction and therefore, a semi structured interviews has been considered to answer this
question. The second question is a ‘How’question that intends to measure the level of
30
satisfaction, therefore, a questionnaire survey is the most appropriate strategy for this question
because it yields to quantifiable answers.
4.1.2 Sampling approach

Due to the large population numberand time constraints to carry out this research, a sample from
the big population has to bechosen. There are various sampling techniques that can be considered
such as; random sampling, simple random sampling, stratifies sampling, cluster sampling,
systemic sampling, quota sampling and convenience sampling.
Random sampling
The random sampling is when the sample is randomly selected. For example, if a study is
conducted in order to find out what people think about a new policy or rule, the random selection
can be conducted in a town where people have been stopped to answer some questions instead of
asking everyone. Reducing bias can be considered to be an advantage of this type of sampling
(Biggam, 2008).
Fox et al (2009) have stated that random sampling can be divided into two types; simple random
sampling and systemic sampling. Credentials
Simple random sampling
In this type of sampling the selections are purely made by chance (Fox et al, 2009). For example,
a 200 size sample can be selected from 5000 people in which each person has an equal chance of
being selected (Biggam, 2008).
Systemic sampling
The systemic sampling is when a sample is selected in a systemic way. For example, if the
population frame is 3,000 people and we only need 200 people, first the interval number should
be calculated by dividing 3,000 by 200 in which gives fraction of 15. The first sample will be a
selected between one and fifteen using a set of random tables and then it continuous at every 15th
person(fox et al, 2009).
Stratifies sampling
31
This type of sampling is when the population is divided into a number of groups which also can
be called as sub-population and draw a separate random sample from each group and then
combine the results in one finding. For example, if we want to conduct a study on the passing
level of students in a class, this can be classified under male and female or school leaver and
mature entrant (Biggam, 2008).
Cluster sampling
The cluster sampling is different than stratified sampling. For example, if the study intends to
investigate the health of chicken in Scotland, in this case different regionsin Scotland and their
subsets which will considered as clusters(Biggam, 2008).
Quota sampling
A quota sampling is most appropriate method to be used in polling or marketing research. For
example, an interviewer might be asked to go and select 10 men, 10 women and 10 teenage girls
and 10 teenage boys to be interviewed (Easton and McColl, 1997)
Convenience sampling
This is a non-random type of sampling in which the researcher selects the sample in accordance
to his / her convenience. For example it could be students that the research know or staff that are
colleagues however, this is a perfect technique to be used if the study is an expletory one
(Biggam, 2008).
However, for the purpose of this research a different technique has been selected. The technique
was built upon the minimum threshold (estimated at 50 participants) of the required number of
participants to carry out this research and aimed to get the maximum number of participants as
possible. Therefore, the researcher had targeted one college (College of Science) out of six
colleges in total from a public university because it had the highest number (with 158) of
academic staff or faculty members serving this particular college.
4.2 Data collection

There are various ways of the data collection procedures that have been considered by the
researcher in order to obtain the maximum responses for a larger data and a healthier result. First,
an online survey was prepared by the researcher and sent to 10 academic staff for a pilot study.
32
The researcher failed to get any response from the participants and therefore considered for an
alternative method. The researcher had approached the management of the university and was
advised to directly approach the selected college and deal with the assistant departments in
regards to the sample survey distribution.
58 of participants were not available, some were on leave and some were sponsored to continue
with their higher education PhD studies, therefore, A 100 number of hardcopies sample survey
were distributed to all departments of College of Science and only 35 participants have retuned
the survey in a week time (that is 35%). the researcher had personally approached the faculty
members and explained to them the value and significance of their participation to complete this
study in order to increase the number of responders. The number of participants had then pushed
from 35 up to 46 responders (that has increased up to 46%).
In terms of a semi structured questions, an electronic mail has been sent to 5 academic staff
members inviting them to participate and asking for their acceptance to be interviewed,
unfortunately the researcher received no replay on these emails. The mail, consisted of
information such as; the name of the researcher, the aim of the research, the minimum and
maximum interview duration and confidently statement. The second option was the personal
approach to their offices and the researcher managed toconduct the first three interviews as a
pilot study. The interview outcomes have been sent and hen further confirmed with the
supervisor.Subsequently, to the supervisor’s approval, forth face to face interview was conducted
however; a phone interview was achieved for the last two interviews which in total makes six
interviews. For this case the participants were randomly selected.
4.2.1 Instruments and measures

As it has been discussed earlier in chapter two of this research, job satisfaction is a complex
phenomenon to be defined however, it can be described as the feelings that an employee has
about his/her job (Qasim et al, 2012). In other words it indicates a positive emotional reaction by
an individual towards a particular job (Oshagbemi, 1999). There are various aspects that can be
considered in a particular job in order to achieve the positive emotional reaction and job
satisfaction. It has been recommended by previous researchers that, job satisfaction should be
measured in degrees (e.g. satisfied, neutral dissatisfied) and should be examined through
utilizing multiple view points and multiple constructs (Spector, 1997). Several instruments have
33
been established in the literature varying from a single item to various numbers of items of
measures (Al-Rubaish et al, 2011). The literature had further tested the validity and reliability of
these measures. For example, Oshagbemi (1999) stated that, the constructs can be divided into
twocategories; single item measure and multiple-item measure. The former had further
conducted a study that aimed at comparing the goodness of these two types of measures and the
results showed that, using a single- item measure gives a better and cohesive result of job
satisfaction than the impression conveyed from the multiple-item measure would justify.
The most popular used and tested JS instruments are; Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(MSQ) (Al Mutairi, 2013). Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, 1969; Saba and Zafar, 2013), Job
Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Malik, 2011), Job in General (JIG) (Ssesanga and Garrett, 2005), Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS), Warr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and Measure of Job (WRSQ)
Satisfaction (MJS). Al-Rubaish et al (2011) had further argued that, most of these instruments
are designed for an hourly-paid employee rather than a salaried professional occupation such as
academies in universities and colleges. Therefore, the former had conducted a study that
proposes an appropriate job satisfaction instrument for Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire
(AJSQ) in which been tested in Saudi Arabia universities. The AJSQ instrument consists of two
parts; the demographic and professional data and the second part contained 46 items in which
one of them was an overall judgment about an individual JS.
For the purpose of this research a job satisfaction instrument has been developed by the
researcher derived from literature review and conceptual framework analysis. It has been divided
into 4 main constructs (demographic data, remuneration and development, management support
and general job satisfaction) and each construct with a number of items as shown in the table
below. In order to maintain the consistency of the results multiple items have been considered for
each construct.
34
Constructs No. of items
Demographic 5
information
Tangible Remuneration and 5
Independent variables
development
Management 5
support
Students 6
Intangible
Colleagues 6
Workload 7
Status of the job 4
Dependent Overall job 7

satisfaction
Total 45
Table 2Instruments and measures

In regards to the general job satisfaction construct (Oshagbemi, 1997) have proposed four
questions to measure their level of satisfaction and they are:
1. An estimate of how much of the time they feel satisfied with their job
2. Their love or hatred for their job
3. Their feelings about not changing their job and
4. How they compare with other workers on their likes or dislikes for their job.
Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) have also considered job in general as a construct and have loaded 4
items and they are; Academic work as an occupation, career prospects in your job, status as a
don (lecturer) and feeling of worthwhile accomplishment by using a 5 level answer scale of
satisfaction.
35
Another study was conducted by Schulze (2006), that also considered a general job satisfaction
as a construct and have loaded 7 items and they are; overall reputation of institution, control over
personal career, the opportunity to use your skills/abilities, sense of accomplishment, opportunity
for continued learning, opportunity to have a significant impact on others and recognition for
your work within the university.
In order to load an appropriate items onto the general job satisfaction construct, the researcher
had considered selecting items that are related to the feelings and attitudes of an employee
towards their job in which also bring into line with the definition of job satisfaction “…feelings
that an employee has about his/her job…” (Qasim et al, 2012) and “…particular job in order to
achieve the positive emotional reaction and job satisfaction…” (Oshagbemi, 1999).
Therefore, with a combination data from the literature review and conceptual framework analysis
the questionnaire for this research has been developed as shown below.
Therefore, with a combination data from the literature review and conceptual framework analysis
the questionnaire for this research has been developed as shown below. Furthermore, the
researcher had considered to utilize two types of likert scale. The fivelevel of satisfaction (where
5=highly satisfied; 1= not at all satisfied) applies for the independent variables (remuneration
and development and management support excluding the demographic information) and five
level of agreement likert scale (where 5= highly agree; 1=highly disagree) applies to the last
construct or dependent variable and that is general job satisfaction construct.
4.3 framework of data analysis

Biggam (2008) stressed that, a framework for data analysis aims to explain how the researcher
intends to describe and analysis the obtained research empirical data. Subsequently to the survey
data collection the researcher has considered for a statistical analysis through utilizing the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) in order to describe and analyze the results and
findings. The SPSS package includes various statistical techniques that will be chosen based up
on major research question, number of dependent variables, number of independent variables and
covariates (Happer and Happer, 2004).
36
Major Number of Number of Analytic

Covariates Goal of
research Dependents Independent Techniques analysis
question Variables Variables
(DV) (IV’s)
None Multiple R Create a
Degree of liner
relationship combination
Multiple
among One of IV’s to
variables Hierarchical optimally
Some
multiple R predict DV
Figure 7 Choosing among statistical techniques

(Happer and Happer, 2004)
Implementing the above model on this research, the research question aims to identify the factors
and the relationship between some factors and overall job satisfaction of the academic staff. The
latter is acting asa dependent variable and remuneration and development,management support,
students, colleagues, workload, status of the job are the independent variables(refer to chapter
three: conceptual framework). The latter did not have any covariates variables therefore, a
multiple regression analysis is found to be the most appropriate statistical technique that aims to
create a linear combination between independent variables to optimally predict the job
satisfaction.
4.4 limitations and potential problems
The limitations and potential problem that will be discussed in this subsection is more related to
the research empirical data rather than the limitations of the dissertation as a whole.
Approach to data collection
The selected approach to the data collection was the questionnaire survey. As this research aims
to explore higher number of factors the researcher realizes a much healthier technique towards
data collection and that is interviews because it stretches a deeper understanding and presents
higher information in identifying those factors. However, due to the large sample size
interviewing 158 faculty members is becoming impractical therefore; a combined method of
interview and survey has been considered. However the survey method can be considered to be a
37
reliable approach for this particular study because it has been tested and validated in the
literature of similar studies.
Population
There was some limitations on obtaining the minimum targeted required for the sample
population. This was due to the limited availability of the staff members in their office’s, access
difficulty and response. This research is conducted in summer holidays between July-September
in which some of participants were on leave, some were in a process to continue their PhD, and
some were available but preparing for a new semester and others were not interested to
participate in research survey. This had limited the size of sample population for this research.
Therefore, the researcher had considered to physically visit the campus and distribute hard copy
surveys and personally go for collection in order to push the participation.
4.5Overall research methods design
There are various approaches that can be followed to carry out a research. The most appropriate
method is considered to be the one which fulfills the aim and objectives of the research. In this
research a mixed approaches have been considered both of quantitative and qualitative approach.
This gives a more coherence analysis and results that can satisfy the research objectives and
answers the research questions. A qualitative research approach is related to exploratory studies
and involves studying things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret,
phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. On the other hand, a quantitative
research approach is related with quantities and measurements and it deals with quantifiable data
(Biggam, 2008).
38
To review the
importance and status of
Higher Education
Institutes in Oman
General objectives
Secondary data Combined
To review the job
Literature review (Secondary and satisfaction concept and
Primary data primary data) its significance to
Interviews academic staff in HEI’s
To review the general

factors that influences
the satisfaction of
academic staff in HEI’s
To measure the level of
Specific objectives
academic staff job
satisfaction,
Questionnaires to Primary data
academic staff through
member in questionnaires
survey To assess the above
university identified job satisfaction
factors on HEI’s in
Oman,
Research question
answered
Figure8Overall research methods design

As it is shown in the above figure, the general objectives have been achieved through a
combined data methodologies the literature review which is secondary data and interviews which
is the primary data. On the other hand, the specific objectives of the present research have also
been achieved through a primary data collection (Questionnaires) and the results, analysis and
synthesis are presented in detail in the next chapter five of survey findings.
39
Chapter five Survey findings: Description, Analysis and Synthesis
5. Introduction
This chapter intends to reveal the findings and statistical analysis used to evaluate the research
question and hypothesis that have been established in earlier chapters. Subsequent to the data
screening process, this chapter reports the results of the screening for errors in the sample and the
procedural check on the instruments utilized. With the help of the preliminary and analysis of
the results, the relationship between remuneration and development, management support,
students, colleagues, workload and status of job against academic staff job satisfaction will be
reported.
Therefore, the survey findings will be described, analyzed, synthesized and evaluated (refer to
figure 17) through utilizing the SPSS 20.0 software package.
Evaluation Description
Synthesis Analysis
Figure 9 Process of description, analysis and synthesis leading to evaluation

(Biggam, 2008)
40
5.1. Survey findings framework

In order to fulfill the requirements of this chapter the researcher have considered
followingcertain stages as shown in belowfigure.
Survey
findings
Frequency results
Measures the frequency of items
Reliability analysis
Testing the reliability and
consistency of the data collection
using the Cronbach’s alpha
Correlations analysis
To determine the strength, direction
and significance association between
two variables
Regression analysis
To determine the direction and
association between two variables
and to identify the least squares
regression line
Figure 10 Survey findings framework

41
5.2 Description
As it has been described in the previous chapter of research methods, there are six independent
variables (remuneration development,management support, students, colleagues, workload and
status of job) that will be tested against one dependent variable (Job Satisfaction) excluding the
demographic information. However, the findings of the latter will first be described through the
frequency analysis of the demographic information.
5.2.1 Frequency results
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
less than 30 years old 3 6.5 6.5 6.5
30-50 years old 27 58.7 58.7 65.2

Valid
Over 50 years old 16 34.8 34.8 100.0
Total 46 100.0 100.0
Description-The above table shows the age frequency of the responders where nearly 59% of
them aged from 30 to 50 years old, 35% aged over 50 years old and nearly 6.5% where less than
30 years old. This shows that most of the responders are at mid aged between 30-50 years old as
shown in the above figure.
42
Qualification

Percent
Master degree 17 37.0 37.0 37.0
Valid PhD 29 63.0 63.0 100.0
Total 46 100.0 100.0
Description -The second item that has been measured in the demographic information variable
is the qualification of the academic staff. The above table shows the frequency of the Master
degree and PhD qualification and the results were 37% and 63% respectively. This means that,
most of the responders are PhD holders as shown in the above figure. This was not a surprising
result, as through the researcher observation during the survey distribution the university finds
PhD to be as an essential qualification and sponsors Omani academic staff to complete their
higher studies abroad.
Gender

Percent
Male 30 65.2 65.2 65.2
Valid Female 16 34.8 34.8 100.0
Total 46 100.0 100.0
43
Description -The above table shows the gender frequency in which 65.2% of responders were
males and 34.78% were females. The reason behind this might be that, the majority of academic
staffs in this particular college are male.
Years of experience in your current job

Percent
Less than 10 years 13 28.3 28.3 28.3
10-25years 21 45.7 45.7 73.9

Valid
Over 25years 12 26.1 26.1 100.0
Total 46 100.0 100.0
44
Description - One of the essential elements that the researcher is concerned about is the years of
experience that academic staff have served in their current job. The frequency table and the pie
chart indicates that 28.3% of academic staff have less than 10 of experience, 45.7% served 10-
25 years of experience and 26% served over 25 years. This means that the majority of the
responders have 10-25 years of experience in their current job.
Academic rank

Percent
Lecturer 12 26.1 26.1 26.1
Assisstant professor 13 28.3 28.3 54.3
Valid Associate professor 9 19.6 19.6 73.9
Professor 12 26.1 26.1 100.0
Total 46 100.0 100.0
Description - the last item that was measured in the demographic information is the academic
rank of the academic staff in the college. As shown in the frequency table and the above pie
chart, there are four ranks that have been considered in the survey and they are; lecturer, assistant
professor, associate professor and professor. The frequency percentages were 26%, 28.3%,
19.6% and 26% respectively.
45
5.2.2 Reliability test

Reliability is a term that reflects on the consistency of a measure of a concept. There are three
factors in which reliability is considered; stability, internal reliability and inter-observer
consistency. Prior to analyzing the data it is essential to make sure that, the collected data is
reliable and consistent enough for it to be analyzed. Testing the reliability and consistency of the
data collection is carried out by using the Cronbach’s alpha and reliability test in which ranges
between 0-1 and 0.7 is preferred to be at the minimum.
In according to Nunnally (1978), the minimum value Cronbach’s alpha that has been suggested
is 0.6. In this research one dependent variable (Job Satisfaction- JS) is tested against six
independent variables (Remuneration development, management support, students, colleagues,
workload and status of job). The Cronbach’s alpha value for all independent variables are above
the threshold value, therefore, the result indicates that, the data is consistent and reliable to be
carried out for further analysis as shown in the below table.
Variables Cronbach’s No. of Means Standard t-test Sig. (2

Alpha Items (X) Deviation tailed)
(SD)
Remuneration .847 5 3.01 .780 26.172 .000

and
Development
Management .819 5 3.12 .715 29.570 .000

support
Students .865 6 3.63 .624 39.490 .000
Colleagues .900 6 3.31 .680 32.975 .000
Workload .897 7 2.96 .782 25.660 .000
Status of job .839 4 3.28 .777 28.614 .000
Job satisfaction .937 7 3.77 .810 31.543 .000
Table 3 Individual reliability test
46
5.2.3 Correlation analysis

The correlation analysis intends to find out the strength of the linear relationship between two
variables. For example, how strong is the relationship between the Remuneration development
(Independent variable) and Job Satisfaction (depend variable)? Referring to the below table 4,
the Pearson correlations were calculated between the variables and the result shows that the
followings:
o The remuneration and development (Rem)and Job satisfaction(JS) are significantly

correlated with r = .676 (p<0.01).
o The management support (Mngmt) and job satisfaction (JS) are significantly correlated
with r = .702 (p<0.01).
o The student (Sdnt) factor and job satisfaction (JS) are significantly correlated with r =
.535 (p<0.01).
o Colleagues (Col) and job satisfaction (JS) are significantly correlated with r = .717
(p<0.01).
o Workload (WL) and job satisfaction (JS) are significantly correlated with r = .751
(p<0.01).
o Status of job (SJ) and job satisfaction (JS) are significantly correlated with r = .704
(p<0.01).
Rem Mngmt Students Colleagues Workload Status JS
Rem 1 .763** .412** .720** .772** .763** .676**
Mngmt 1 .362* .844** .689** .760** .702**
Students 1 .494** .407** .457** .535**
Colleagues 1 .708** .800** .717**
Workload 1 .766** .751**
Status 1 .704**
JS 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4Correlation analysis

(SPSS results, appendix five)
47
r-value Interpretation
0.0 to 0.29 Negligible or little correlation
0.3 to 0.49 Low correlation
0.5 to 0.69 Moderate or marked correlation
0.7 to 0.89 High correlation
0.9 to 1.00 Very high correlation
Table 5 Guildford’s rule of thumb correlation coefficient interpretation

(Guildford, 1973)
The results also can be interpreted based on Guildford’ s rule of thumb as shown in table 5 above
which states that, remuneration and development r value falls between 0.5 to 0.69 (.676) therefore,
remuneration and job satisfaction have a moderate correlation. Other variables can be described as
follows:
o The management supports (Mngmt) and job satisfaction (JS) are highly correlated.
o Students and job satisfaction (JS) have moderate or marked correlation.
o Colleagues and job satisfaction (JS) arehighly correlated
o Workload and job satisfaction (JS) arehighly correlated
o Status of the job and job satisfaction (JS) are highly correlated.
Therefore, an evidence of a true relationship has been found and the null hypothesis is rejected in
which can be translated that, all research hypothesis was supported. However, from the
correlation table it can also be observed that, there are high values of significant correlation
(typically over r =.70) between independent variables and this is one the signs problems might
occur when running regression analysis such as Multicollinearity.
48
Problems Consequences Solutions
Omitted explanatory variables If the explanatory variables are Examine the Ordinary Least
missing the p-value cannot be Squares (OLS) residuals and
trusted GWR coefficients or run Hot
Spot analysis
Nonlinear relationship The poor performance of the Use the scatterplot matrix graphic
model when OLS and GWR are to elucidate the relationship
linear but the explanatory or among all variables in the model
independent variables are non-
linear
Data outliers The true relationship of the best Use the scatterplot matrix or any
fit can be pulled through other graphing tools to examine
influential outliers extreme data values
Non-stationary If the relationship between the The OLS tool

variables is inconsistent,
computed standard errors will be
artificially inflated.
Multicollinearity Leads to an over-counting type of Run the Spatial Autocorrelation

bias and unstable model tool on the residuals
Inconsistent variance in Results will become biased if the OLS tool to test inconsistency
residuals model predicts poorly for some
range of values
Normal distribution bias The coefficients become use OLS tool to test the normal
unreliable when regression model distribution
are not distributed
Table 6 Common regression problems

Source:
http://resources.esri.com/help/9.3/arcgisdesktop/com/gp_toolref/spatial_statistics_toolbox/regression_anal
ysis_basics.htm
5.2.4Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is the correlations or multiple correlations of sufficient magnitude to have the
potential to adversely affect regression estimates. The importance of considering taking this step
is because the data will affect the regression analysis results for example the R2 value might be
large but none of the individual beta weights are statistically significant or a wrong direction of
variables can also be resulted as shown in the table below.
49
This can be measured in two ways tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Tolerance is
the percentage of variance in the independent variable that is not accounted for by the other
independent variables (s). Most commonly tolerance values of .10 or less are cited as
problematic (although .20 has also been suggested).
VIF is the reciprocal of tolerance 1/ (1-R2). It indicates the degree to which the standard errors
are inflated due to the levels of collinearity. VIF values of 10 or greater are often cited as
indicative of problematic collinearity.
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Tolerance VIF

Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.077 3.290 .327 .745
Rem1 -.017 .247 -.012 -.071 .944 284 3.520
Mngmt .385 .301 .242 1.278 .209 .227 4.396
Student .338 .162 .223 2.090 .043 .718 1.392
Colleagues .118 .276 .085 .429 .670 .208 4.814
Workload1 .419 .165 .404 2.537 .015 .323 3.101
Status1 .089 .326 .049 .274 .786 .256 3.906

a. Dependent Variable: JS
Table 7 Regression analysis
The above regression analysis shows the p, tolerance and VIF values. Remuneration,
management, colleagues and status of the job shows insignificance value with ƿ>0.05 whereas
students and workload are the only two significant independent variables. The tolerance and VIF
values do not seem to be a major problematic to the data because all the tolerance values are
above 0.1 and all the VIF values is not greater than 10. However, there are some VIF values that
are closer to 5 such as colleagues and management with VIF value of 4.814 and 4.396
respectively which can be considered to be a problem. Another sign of multicollinearity is the
positive or negative sign unstandardized coefficients B. For example, the value of B for
independent variable is -.017 which is not a true result. Happner and Happner (2004) suggested
50
that, the solution to this is either to combine the two variables into one variable or to eliminate
one of the two variables for a better and stable model.
5.2.5 Regression analysis

A regression analysis aims to determine the direction and association between two variables
usually between dependent and independent variable (s).Heppner and Heppner (2004) stated
that, there are two types of regression analysis and they are; the linear regression and multiple
regression. The linear regression is used when the researcher aims to determine the association of
a dependent variable against a one independent variable. The multiple regressions are used when
the researcher aims to investigate the relationship between one dependent variable against two or
three independent variables. For the purpose of this research the multiple regression analysis has
been selected based on the number of independent variables from the research hypothesis.
H1: There is a significant relationship between remuneration development and job satisfaction
H2: There is a significant relationship between management support and job satisfaction.
H3: There is a significant relationship between students and job satisfaction.
H4: There is a significant relationship between colleagues and job satisfaction.
H5: There is a significant relationship between workload and job satisfaction.
H6: There is a significant relationship between status of job and job satisfaction.
However, by looking at the correlation table most of the variables share high values of
significance except of remunerationdevelopment and students. Therefore, this research will
further consider only these two predictors for regression analysis. Heppner and Heppner (2004)
had further suggested and preferred to use two terms; Criterion or outcome variable is used for
(dependent variable) and predicator is for (independent variable) because the predictors cannot
be controlled in which will be used throughout this chapter.
51
Model R R2 Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics Durbin

R2 of the Watson
R2 F Df1 Df2 Sig F
Estimates
Change change change
1 .732a .536 .514 3.951 .536 24.839 2 43 .000 2.072

Table 8Regression analysis model summary
The strength of the relationship between the job satisfaction and all predictorsare measured by
the multiple correlation coefficients (R) = 0.732a. R2 identifies the value of coefficient of
multiple determination is 0.536in which it can be said that nearly 54% of the variation in job
satisfaction (Y) is accounted for through combined linear effects of the remuneration and
development and students (X).
However in multiple regressions the interesting value is the adjusted R2. The latter represents the
proportion of the total variability of criterion explained by the predictors in the model. The value
of the adjusted R2 =. 514 which reports that, around 51% of job satisfaction variability is
explained by remuneration and development and students.
Model Sum of Df Mean square F Sig

Squares
Regression 775.479 2 387.739 24.839 .000b
Residual 671.239 43 15.610
Total 1446.717 45
Table 9 ANOVA
The most interesting figures in the ANOVA table are the F and p values because they have been
calculated through the other columns. The tables results indicates that, the overall model of the
present study is significant with p =.000 ƿ<0.05.
52
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t Sig. Tolerance VIF
B Std. Error Beta
1 (constant) 4.167 3.604 1.156 .254
Rem .798 .166 .549 4.811 .000 .830 1.205
Student .468 .173 .309 2.710 .010 .830 1.205
Table 10 Regression analysis Coefficients

The above coefficients table represents values of the regression equation (y= β0 + β1x1 +
β2x2+…..+ βkxk) and the values of (p) in order to check for the significance if p ≤ .05. The (p)
significance value of predicators remuneration and development and students are presented in the
table to be .000 and .010 respectively.
The model equation is found out to be Y= 4.167+.798X1+ .468X2and least β ≠0 therefore, we

reject the H0: when β = 0 in which we are happy about.
It can also be observed from the above results that, the values of tolerance and VIF problematic
anymore. Therefore, the model is more stable after eliminating some of predictors from the
model.
For a clearer picture of the findings, the researcher has considered to present scatter plots
showing the relationship between predicators and criterion as shown below.
Figure 11 Example of relationship and strength between the variables
53
Source:http://resources.esri.com/help/9.3/arcgisdesktop/com/gp_toolref/spatial_statistics_toolbox/regression_analysis_ba
sics.htm
Graph 1Relationship between Remuneration and development and Job Satisfaction

As it is shown above (graph1) , the first graph presents the relationship between two variables
remuneration development and job satisfaction in which indicates a positive linear relationship.
It further shows R2= 0.457 that identifies the value of coefficient of multiple determinations and
that means nearly 46% of the variation in job satisfaction (Y) is accounted for through combined
linear effects of the remuneration and development (X).
54
Graph 2Relationship between Students and Job Satisfaction

The second graph (refer to graph 2) presents the relationship between students and job
satisfaction in which also indicates a positive linear relationship. It further shows R2= 0.286 that
identifies the value of coefficient of multiple determinations and that means 29% of the variation
in job satisfaction (Y) is accounted for through combined linear effects of the students (X) in
which also indicates a positive linear relationship.
According to the above graphs plotted, all predicators share a positive relationship with job
satisfaction as a criterion but differ in the level of strength. This can be also translated as that, for
example, if the remuneration and development increases the job satisfaction increases and if the
factors related to students grows the job satisfaction also increases i.e. they move into similar
directions and the same applied to the rest of predicators.
5.3 Analysis and synthesis
The findings and the results obtained from the correlation and regression analysis verifies the
positive relationship between the predicators and criterion for this study. It further explains that,
when the both remuneration and development and students constructs increases in the university,
the job satisfaction level of the academic staff increases and vice-versa.
55
5.3.1 Factors related to Remuneration and Development
Remuneration plays a major role in job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in
higher education (Strydom, 2011). It is considered to be one of the complex and
multidimensional factor in regards to the job satisfaction (Ismail, 2012). The latter further
explains that, remuneration helps and supports individuals to meet their basic needs through their
pay and salary as explained in Maslow’s law. Also, remuneration is considered to be one of the
extrinsic factors (hygiene) as per Hezberg theory, in which leads to dissatisfaction if absent and
does not achieve the satisfaction of an academic staff when it exist. Some of the previous studies
have supported the theory and some of them did not. For example, Maniram, R. (2007) found
that, remuneration is one of the factors that have a major impact on the job dissatisfaction on
educators of Education and Training College. Nevertheless, Ssesanga, and Garrett (2005) study,
disagrees with the former and concludes that, any of Herzberg’s theory factors can influence
both of satisfaction and dissatisfaction of university academics. The former had further
considered measuring the remuneration construct through two items and they are; inadequate
salary and irregular salary.
Other studies had a contradicting result, where remuneration did not score high relationship with
job satisfaction. For example, (Awang and Ahmed, 2010) aimed at studying the impact of
lecturers job satisfaction on their commitment in terms of their academic activities through
investigating the relationship between some factors such as; promotional opportunities,
remuneration, working environment, workload, relationship with colleagues and management
style against overall job satisfaction. The results and findings of the study indicated that
remuneration had a very low correlation with job satisfaction compared to other factors
therefore; it has been excluded from their study analysis. Another positive example, was
conducted by Mustapha (2013) aimed at identifying the impact of financial reward on lecturers
job satisfaction in four public universities in Kelantan, and found that, a moderately low
correlation was found between remuneration package and job satisfaction in their study.
Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) measured the remuneration theme through factors such as; Salary,
retirement or fringe benefits, material resources, present pay considering skill and effort and
position on pay scale. Some faculty members feel that their workload is very high without any
further consideration from the management to provide an adequate remuneration that they
56
deserve, although they share similar or higher qualification as their colleagues (Strydom, 2011).
Therefore, Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) had further suggested that, in order to have an unbiased
remuneration output, experience and level of education of each faculty member should be
considered to measure this factor.
In this particular research and based of the SPSS results, a positive relationship was found
between remuneration and development and job satisfaction a high correlation of r =0.676. The
remuneration and development construct in this study consists of five factors related to pay and
salary, research funds, support for conference attendance and consulting opportunities for
additional income. The highest mean amongst all these six factors scored on pay and salary with
the mean of 3.46 and the lowest scored on consulting opportunities for additional income with a
mean of 2.55 as shown in ( figure 21) below. This means that, the most satisfied factor in
regards to remuneration is the salary and the least satisfied is the consulting opportunities for the
additional income. This is not a surprising result, because most of the interviewed faculty
members did not have any issues in regards the pay and salary although one of them stated that:
‘…payment packages are not competitive...’ (Interview with academic staff No. 6) however, this
does not translate job unsatisfactory.
Figure 12 The mean of Remuneration and development score factors

(SPSS results, appendix 5)
Pay and salary
57
The results indicates that, nearly 61% of responders were satisfied with the pay, salary and
benefits packages in which professors scored the highest satisfaction percentage with nearly 22%
whereas, 15%, , 13%, 10% scored for assistant and associate professor and lecturer respectively
(refer to appendix 5). The reason behind this could be because; professors are the highest
academic rank in this university and have managed to move forward with their promotions and
challenged all the academic ranks in the university in which include salary increment. Therefore,
it’s also worth to dig in deeper and relate this result with some of the demographic data in order
to observe the most satisfied academic rank in this college.
It was proved in the literature that pay had a major impact on job satisfaction, for example,
Ghaffar, et al (2013) investigated the impact of pay along with other factors on academic staff
job satisfaction in the Islamia University of Bahawalpur and the results shows a positive
relationship between pay and job satisfaction. Similarly, other studies have supported that in
their studies, where they have investigated the relationship between pay and job satisfaction
results indicated a strong relationship between them and this has also been observed in(Sohail
and Delin, 2013; Azmi and Sharma, 2012) . The former had further commented that, employees
or academic staff would prefer to move from an organization to another only if a better pay
offers is considered.
Promotion opportunities
The mean score for promotion opportunities in this study was at 2.957% in which it can be
translated that most of academic staffs were partially satisfied with the promotion opportunities.
This was expected results from the survey as it is also aligned with the interview results.
‘…The teaching activity can be weighted as 70%, administration 20% and research 10% in
which promotion is directly related to the research activity only which is not balanced and does
not make any sense…’ (Interview with academic staff 6)
‘…the university regulations the promotions is related to research activities only which is kind of
good but at the same time it limits other activities to be included for our promotions...’
(Interview with academic staff 4)
58
The university promotion policy is restricted to the research activities while the academic staff
stressed that, the teaching and administration activities cover most of their working hour’s
duration. Houston et al (2006), in their study have also indicated that, the promotion
opportunities have not been equally recognised in a variety academic work such as teaching and
research achievements.
Promotion is considered to be one of the legal factors where each faculty member has the right to
get promoted (Sohail and Delin, 2013). The latter had conducted a study that investigates the
2
relationship between promotion along with other factor with the academic staff and job
satisfaction of GCUL Pakistan. The findings of the study show that, promotion has a moderate to
a strong correlation with job satisfaction. However, a weak and no relationship were also found
in the literature. For example, a weak positive correlation between promotion and job
satisfaction also was one the findings observed through a study conducted by (Ghaffar et al,
2013). In the case of non-significant relationship between promotion and job satisfaction found
in a study that was carried out by Azri and Sharma (2012) in which they aimed to investigate the
relationship between jobs related dimensions and job satisfaction of teaching staff in India.
Furthermore, a research was carried out in Ugandan public university that focused on
identifying the relationship between factor and academic staff job satisfaction and the results
indicates that the majority of academic staffs were dissatisfied with promotion (Ssesanga and
Garrett, 2005).
In this study, as the results indicates, most of the satisfied academics in regards to the promotion
opportunities were professors with the mean of nearly14% of satisfaction and the least satisfied
were the lecturers with also 2.33% level of satisfaction whereas both assistant professor and
associate professor had a mean score of 4.65%. This is a similar matter to the pay and salary
factor, since lecturers are still in their initial stage of their career yet their promotion process has
not been met yet. On the other hand professors have already passed this stage and achieved the
highest academic rank. This is also supported by the literature, where it has been stated that
younger workers are more disappointed with pay and promotion than the older employees
because they have achieved their advancement and income potential compared to the younger
employees (Bernard, 2012).
2
Academic staff includes lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors
59
Research funds
In regards to the research funds, the mean score falls on an average level of satisfaction with a
mean of 3.065 as shown in the above figure. Again the research funds has a similar line of pay
and promotion as the majority of academic staff who are satisfied with research funds are the
professors followed by assistant professor, associate professor and lecturers with 16.3%, 11.63%,
4.65% and 2.33% respectively.
As discussed earlier in regards to promotion, the academic staffs are concerned about the time
available during their working hours to carry out their research activities. The working hours are
not balanced between administration, teaching and research activities as research is having the
least time. Many academics do prefer to spend more of their time on research of their own
interest rather than that determined by others (Bernard, 2012). Oshagbemi (1997) had conducted
a study that aimed at investigating the relationship between teaching and research activities
towards academic staff satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Research funds was one of the elements3
that has been measured and the findings states that, lack of research funds had contributed to
academic staff job dissatisfaction. This was also been supported by other studies for example,
Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) in terms of research one of the most disappointing items related to
the extrinsic factors were research grants and library facilities. Another study was conducted in
UK and the results indicated a percentage of 28.7% only of academic staff confessed that they
were satisfied with the financial support to carry out their research activities in which resulted in
job dissatisfaction (Schulze, 2006). Furthermore, Houston, et al (2006) studies the impact of
workload on academic staff job satisfaction in one of the universities in New Zealand through
both core (teaching and research) and secondary activities (administration). The study findings
shows that, there is a weak disagreement that academics receive an adequate funding for
research and some have faced difficulties to attract external research funding.
The low level of satisfaction observed in this research and the literature could be explained
through a number ofthoughts. The rules and conditions of obtaining the research grants may be
restricted in a university in which academics may face some difficulties in getting their
application accepted. Oshagbemi (1997) had further observed that, increasing difficulty and time
3
Elements includes: Research success in terms of publication, academic freedom, opportunities to attend
conferences, research recognition, research challenges, success in research rating, finding out new things in own
research area etc. (Oshagbemi, 1997).
60
spent in obtaining research grants had led to dissatisfaction of faculty members to get their
research funded.
Support for conference attendance
The mean scored for the support for conference attendance is also 3.065 in which indicates an
average level of satisfaction. In regards to the support for conference attendance 16.3% of
responders were also professors who stated that they were satisfied with support for conference
attendance followed by nearly 7% for both assistant and associate professor and 4.65% of
satisfaction scored by lecturers.
The impact of funding to support conference attendance was also observed in the literature.
Opportunities to attend a conference was one of the items that was considered in a research
conducted by Oshagbemi (1997) under the research factor and the results shows that, this item
had a direct contribution with the academics job satisfaction. Schulze (2006) found that, the lack
of providing sufficient funding from the management to attend seminars and conferences had led
to job dissatisfaction of the academic staff in UK.
The findings of present research indicate an average level of satisfaction in relation to the
support provided to attend the conferences. There are some possibilities that, this result is related
to the workload of academic staff in which restricts their time to apply and attend conferences.
Consultation for additional income
The least satisfactory item that was scored in relation to the remuneration construct in this
research is the consultation for additional income with a mean of 2.5% which falls between
partially satisfied and not satisfied level of satisfaction.
Oshagbemi (1997) mentions that, the measurement of job satisfaction should only be measured
on the daily core activities of academic staff4 it is very important to consider other aspects also.
These aspects are such as; relative job security, opportunity for consultancy, freedom of life
style, flexibility in working hours, forging travel, opportunity to work at home contact with
industry through consultancy, opportunity for self-development etc. the former has conducted a
study and the findings shows that, 28% of academic staff in the university were satisfied with
these aspects other than their core activities.
4
Core activities such as: teaching and research
61
At the present research, academic staffs feel that, they have not been provided with a proper
procedure of consultation for an additional income. This also could be related to the university
policy in regards to the provision of an additional income at the length of their service such as
bonuses and extra allowances other than the mandatory ones.
5.3.2 Factors related to Students

Students are considered to be a core stakeholder and a direct HEI’s customer (Alhawary and
Aborumman, 2011). In this research the level of satisfaction of academic staffs with their
students is above the mid-point or the average as shown in figure 23 below. The highest
satisfaction level was scored on the relationship of academics with their students with a mean of
3.957 and lowest score was on student’s level of knowledge with a mean of 3.326 which is still
above the average. The results and findings indicate that, academics in this university are happy
with their students in which directly contributes to liking their job and increased job satisfaction.
Figure 13The mean scores of Management Support items in relation to students

((SPSS results, appendix 5)
62
Interaction with your students
Student achievement is directly associated in achieving a higher level of motivation in which

therefore, measuring the of academic job satisfaction (Malik, 2011). The literature had further
confirms with both positive and negative relationship between students and the academic staff
job satisfaction. For example, Paul and Phua (2011) carried out a study that aimed at
investigating the relationship between demographic variables and academics job satisfaction, the
findings points that the highest scored factor by the academics towards their job satisfaction was
their relationship with their students. The relationship between teachers and students was also
found significant in Ugandan universities and most of the faculty members declared a good and
satisfied relationship with their students (Ssesanga and Garrett, 2005). However, Oshagbemi
(1997) had a contradicting finding which states that, around 30 per cent of academic staffs are
dissatisfied with students’ attitude and learning, demands of individual students and the staff
student ratio. This has also been supported by Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) in which it has been
found that, the number of students in a class had directed to dissatisfaction of academic staff.
. This has been also confirmed in the interview data where a staff member stated that:
“…There are many things that makes me happy in my profession such as my interaction with
students, working in projects and research with students, monitoring students, I feel very good
talking to them…”(Interview with academic staff No. 1)
One of the academic also advised his colleagues, in order to be happy in their jobs they have to:
“…To have a good attitude, good relationship with students and give them enough time to ask
questions it’s a process of give and take…” (Interview with academic staff No. 2)
“...A successful academic staff should not keep a distance from students they should have more
interactions with students but of course with some limitations, student achievement is a mirror of
their success…”(Interview with academic staff No. 3)
Students’ level of knowledge
A study was conducted by Bentley et al (2011) which aimed at investigate the academic job
satisfaction in Australian universities, the result indicated that, poor student quality had a direct
63
influence on academic staff job satisfaction in which it was the third scored strongest factor in
the study. Ssesanga and Garrett (2005)had further stressed that, academics were mostly satisfied
with interest shown by students towards their studies. Wilson (2008) carried out a study that
aimed at investigating the relationship between professors’ attitudes toward students, immediacy,
and job satisfaction and student outcomes. The finding shows no relationship between liking
students and job satisfaction.Paul and Phua (2011) results also indicates that, academic staff were
happy with their students in which was ranked the highest ranked score in job satisfaction level
with 54% responders.
Working in projects with students
Houston et al (2006), investigates issues related to workload at university and supervising

students’ research was one of the items that can be incorporated in the workload activities where
relevant. Most of the responders in Paul and Phua (2011) study agreed that their relationship with
their students is good which contributed to their high level of satisfaction.
5.3.3 Overall job satisfaction
The overall job satisfaction is the criterionvarible that was measured againest the predicators
remuneration and development and students. Oshagbemi (1999) found that a multiple item
measure gives a closer results to the reality in terms of measuring the academic staff job
satisfaction in higher education.
Therfore, in the present study the job satsiafaction has been furthur measued by considering
seven items through likert scale of agreement in which (5) points represents highly agreed and
(1) point represnts highly disagree. The mean score results of all items were above the average
with a highest mean of 4.196 (I like bieng an academic) and the lowest mean score of 3.37 (I
have the tools and resources to do my job well). The overall job satisfaction mean score is 3.76
in which it can be translated that over 50% of responders indicated that, they are satisfied with
their jobs in this particular college. Despite other factors that impacts their job actvites that was
discussed earlier, it has been observed that the strogesnt reason of staying at this job is mainly
due to their love and intrest of bieng an academic.
64
Figure 14The mean scores of Overall Job Satisfaction

(SPSS results, appendix 5)
Similar results were also found in the interviews data (qualitative data) in which academic staff
also stated in their interviews that:
“…at the end of the day I like this profession…” (Interview with academic staff No. 1)
“I like the teaching filed I find myself as an academic…” (Interview with academic staff No. 6)
“…No material should be considered and the love of this job comes from interest…”(Interview
with academic staff No. 2)
Furthermore, the majority have agreed that, they have a feeling of personal accomplishment 3.95
mean score and they are not thinking of changing their jobs. The findings also show that, the
most satisfied and loving their job in according to the academic rank are professors and least
loving their job are lecturers as shown above in figure 23. The literature had also witnessed that,
professors score the highest level of satisfaction compare to other academic ranks. This also was
supported by Toker (2011) in which found that, the higher job rank the higher level of job
satisfaction. The possible reason behind this could be that, lecturers are still at the beginning of
their careers and yet their achievements are at its minimum. Other reasons could be that, some of
65
the lecturers did not consider being an academic as their first career interest however after
scoring distinction MSc qualification, an academic position has been offered to them.
“…Ihave graduated from this university and I was one of the students who scored first class in
my Masters, then I have worked as an academic immediately after my completion of MSc and
PhD studies abroad, the university had sponsored me…”(Interview with academic staff No. 5)
Figure 15 Overall job satisfaction and academic rank
In regard to assistant professors 13.95% of responders partially agreed and 9.30 agreed that, they
love their job as being an academic. The reason behind this was unclear; however it shows a
moderate overall job satisfaction at this academic rank. A moderate level of overall job
satisfaction of academics in public universities has been widely observed in the literature (Amzat
and Idris, 2011). Furthermore, Oshabemi (1997)aimed at investigating academics job satisfaction
in relation to their mangers, the findings show that, they were fairly satisfied with their jobs
although there were some job aspects also lead to their job dissatisfaction. Other studies found
that, lecturers were uncertain of their overall job satisfaction (Paul and Phua, 2011). Malik
(2011) study, also confirms that, most of faculty members at Balochistan University were
generally satisfied with their jobs.
The results, findings and analysis can be summarized by stating that, a positive relationship has
been found between all predictors and criterion of the study. However, only two predictors were
taking further for regression analysis due to the model instability. Although, remuneration and
development and students show a positive relationship and high contribution towards academic
66
staff job satisfaction, nevertheless, other factors also should be highlighted due to its positive
rcorrelations with the overall job satisfaction.
5.3.4Factors related to Management support

The management support is considered to be one of the main factors that influence academic
staff job satisfaction. It strengths the relationship and increases the trust between them. As it has
been observed earlier in this research, the result indicates a highly strong relationship between
academic staff and job satisfaction. Therefore, if the management supports increases the job
satisfaction also increases. The items considered to measure this constructs includes,
appreciation and recognition, teamwork activities, facilities provided, non-academic social
activities and the relationship with their line managers. It also includes other items related to
students, workload, colleagues, and job status.
The mean scores from the highest satisfied to the lowest level of satisfaction were relationship
with line manager, appreciation and recognition, teamwork activities with the management,
facilities provided for academic staff and non-academic social activities with a mean of 3.512%,
3.302%, 3.093, 2.929%, 2.953 and 2.767% and respectively as shown in figure 22 below.
Schulze (2006) declared that, one of the issues that might have an impact on the relationship
between academics and management is the Ethnicity. The direct relationship of the academics
with the line managers and Head of Department (HOD) is one of the crucial aspects that should
not be neglected. Through an interview with an academic staff, it has been proved that un-
pleasant relationship leads towards lower job satisfaction and employees turnover.
‘…Unfortunately today I have not been well appreciated about my work and commitment. My
job is not only teaching and research it also includes administration activities it is very
important that the people who have positions to give you appreciation as your years of
experience is long you really need good appreciation. Poor and bad line managers can influence
the staff job satisfaction and they have to meet my need…’ (Interview with academic staff No. 4)
The faculty member had further stated:
67
‘…A number of my colleagues have resigned their jobs here due to similar reasons, no
appreciation, no acknowledgment and their needs has not been met although they have served
many years in this university…’(Interview with academic staff No. 4)
“…I was appreciated by the university as being the best academic staff which makes me feel
happy…”(Interview with academic staff No. 3)
“Appreciation makes a lot of differences in your input…”(Interview with academic staff No. 6)
A study in UK indicates that, less than fifty percent of academics staff, stated that they are
satisfied with recognition received by the management and university as a whole for the work
they have achieved (Schulze, 2006). This has also been supported in a study that was carried out
by Huston et al (2006), where the findings points that, a lower positive responses was achieved
in regards to their feelings of being acknowledged and appreciated for the good work done. A
similar result was also found in other studies, for example, Maniram (2007) investigated the
factors affecting job satisfaction and the results indicated that, most of the academic staffs were
dissatisfied with this aspect of their job.
5.3.5 Factors related to Colleagues

A friendly and comfortable atmosphere is an important aspect that requires attention in a
working environment. Sohail and Delin (2013) stated that, a friendly relationship between
academic staff increases the job satisfaction level and the unfriendly relationship increases their
dissatisfaction level.
In terms of relationship between academic staff and their colleagues, the mean score indicates an
average level of satisfaction in which the highest mean score is 3.465 of personal relationship
with colleagues and the lowest mean score is 3.233 on the academic communication among
colleagues. Other items were support from colleagues towards completing individual activities,
overall teamwork activities in the department, colleagues’ attitude towards their jobs and
colleagues interest in teaching with mean scores of 3.349, 3.326, 3.279 and 3.279.
Schulze (2006) found that academics are generally satisfied with their colleague’s behavior. The
highest satisfaction item of the study was the personal relationship between them and ranked
lowest ranked item on the communication amongst them. This is also was supported by other
studies, for example, Khalid et al (2012) findings shows that, the most satisfied factors scored in
68
public universities were the co-workers and job security. Another study was carried out by
Oshagbemi (1997) in regards to co-worker and the findings show that 20 per cent of academic
staffs were satisfied with their coworkers in which proves the importance of this aspect towards
job satisfaction of employees. The former had measured the co-workers factor by considering
certain items such as; pleasant working colleagues, value of teamwork, competent co-workers,
support and collaboration from colleagues, friendship, and happy collegial relationships.
5.3.6 Factors related to Workload

Workload can be defined as any extra activities that are an additional work to the core assigned
duties of an employee in which also affects the performance and job satisfaction (Sohail and
Delin, 2013).
As it has been stated in the workload definition any extra activities that is given to academics
other than their core duties is considered to be as workload. The core duties of academic usually
involve teaching, assignments marking, exam preparation and research activities, however
loading other activities will directly affect their performance and therefore job satisfaction. Out
of eight items only one item had scored a bit higher than the average with a mean = 3.651, which
is teaching delivery and syllabus as shown above in figure 25. On the other hand, most of the
academics indicated that they were not satisfied with the time spent on administration work with
a mean of 2.651 followed by time spent on assignment marking and grading with a mean of
2.791.
Similar results were also found in the qualitative date where academic faculty members stated
that:
“I like the teaching filed I find myself as an academic…” (Interview with academic staff No. 1)
“…spending much time on grading and assignments marking every week although it’s part of my
job I have to do it, it’s not that I am unhappy about it but it’s just affects my time to do some
other work…” (Interview with academic staff No. 1)
“…I am less comfortable with the administration work because I don’t have enough time to
carry out all the works at the same time and the same applies with research
activities…”(Interview with academic staff No. 5)
69
The relationship between workload and job satisfaction have been clearly described in the
literature. For example, Ahsan et al (2009) studied the impact of job stress on academic job
satisfaction through measuring a number of factors. Workload was one of these factors and their
research findings indicate a positive relationship between job stress and workload and a negative
relationship between job stress and job satisfaction. An opposite results was found in another
study by Mustapha (2013) who aimed to investigate the relationship between daily faculty
workload and job satisfaction, a negative significant relationship was observed.
5.3.7 Factors related to Status of the job

The job status measured by loadings four items considering two different perspectives; the
academic staff status in academic circle and overall status of being an academic in between their
families and society. Both items mean score was above the average in which indicates that, most
of the academic staff are satisfied with their status in academic circle as well as around their
families and society.
The literature also supports that, the status of job had has a direct contribution to the job
satisfaction. For example, most of the academic staffs in South Africa agreed that, they have an
opportunity for a definite place in the community as per Strydom (2011) study under the
emotional well-being cluster.
Few observations on demographic information, no major difference was found between female
and male in regards to overall job satisfaction although male scored higher than females in the
study because the number of males working in this college is higher than females. On the other
hand, academic ranks seem to have an impact on job satisfaction as it has been observed in the
results and the literature.Oshagbemi (2003) study indicates that, academic rank have a strong
correlation with the overall job satisfaction of academic staff.
70
Chapter six: Conclusion
6. Conclusion
This research aims to explore the factors affecting academic staff job satisfaction in Higher
Education Institutes of the academic sector in the Sultanate of Oman. Hence, this chapter aims to
revisit the research objectives and it further aims to summarize and concludes the results and
findings chapter that have been discussed in details earlier in previous chapters. In addition to
that, researcher recommendations, contribution and limitations and future research will be further
considered and discussed. Finally, this chapter will reflect whether the above objectives have
been met or not which also includes consideration research importance or value of study.
Conclusion
chapter
Introduction
Research objectives:
Summary of findings and
conclusions
Recommendations
Contribution to knowledge
Limitations
Self-reflection
Figure 16 Structure of conclusion chapter

(Biggam, 2008)
71
6.1 Summary of findings and Conclusions

Higher Education development is considered to be one of the main future directions of Oman.
Throughout the literature importance of higher education in Oman has been clearly stated and
discussed. Oman 2020 vision aims to advance with the higher education institutes that offer
various programs in different fields towards meeting the country requirements for its further
development and sustainability. In order to achieve this, the development of human resources
was one of the major concerns of his Majisty Sultan Qaboos for Oman’s future. Therefore,
education becomes one of the challenges of development that requires some policies and
mechanisms to overcome the challenge. The suggested mechanism plans in this regard were; to
motivate the University Staff to conduct research and studies, provide consultation services in all
academic fields to all developmental sectors of the country and continuance of scholarships for
the Omani staff and researchers of Sultan Qaboos University in order to meet the University
requirements of qualified scientific cadres of faculty members.
Academic staff job satisfaction has a major influence on the overall operation of an organization
or HEI’s (Wong, 2009). Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience but not stating any negative emotional state
(Locke, 1976; Armstrong, 1996). Therefore, this research points at studying the factors that
influence academic staff job satisfaction at public university in Oman.
The general factors that influence academic staff job satisfaction have been reviewed with a
support from past researchers and the literature. The academic job satisfaction is a key concern in
higher education for most of the countries worldwide such as; UK, USA, Portugal, Jordan,
Pakistan, Uganda, KSA, Kuwait, Oman, etc. Most of these countries share the similar factors but
differs in the level and strength of its relationship with the job satisfaction. The present research
have considered presenting a number of models related to the factors that influence academic
staff job satisfaction derived and tested from previous researchers. These factors were related to
management, pay and salary, co-workers, working environment, promotions, acknowledgment
and recognition, demographic information, Autonomy, emotional well-being, challenges and
accomplishments etc. Therefore, the most common factors that have been derived from the
literature were identified to be; the pay and salary, working environment, promotion
opportunities, job security, management system and supervision, HOD behavior (Alhawary and
72
Aborumman, 2011; Rehman et al, 2013;Khalid et al, 2012; Saba and Zafar, 2013; Strydom, 2011;
Yong, 2002; Ghaffar et al, 2013; Chen et al, 2006; Aggarwal and Medury, 2012)
In the context of Oman public university, qualitative approach was considered and through
interviews conducted in College of Science the local themes of factors were listed. The results
and interview findings presented five themes and they are; factors related to students, factors
related to colleagues, factors related to the management, factors that are related to the work itself
and factors that are related to the social status. In summary the final model of factors has been
achieved through a combination procedure of the common factors from the literature and the
interviews. The researcher had further divided these factors into two categories; factors that are
considered to be tangible and factors that are intangible. The tangible factors includes
remuneration aspects such as , pay, salary, benefits, research funds, family support and attending
conferences whereas the intangible factors includes all items related to management, students,
colleagues, workload and the status of the job.
The measurement of the level of relationship between the identified factors and academic staff
job satisfaction can be considered at many forms. The literature presents a number of tools and
instruments that have been utilized and tested in previous studies5. The present research has
taken these tools and instruments as a guide to develop a specific instrument to fit in with this
research aim, objectives and question. The results and findings of data collected were found
with the help of SPSS, frequency analysis, reliability, correlation and regression analysis results
were presented.
The results show a positive relationship between predicators (remuneration and development,
management support, students, colleagues, workload and status of the job) and criterion (job
satisfaction). These factors found to have a mixed relationship varies from a strong, moderate,
weak and sometimes to no direct relationship towards overall academic staff job satisfaction.
Due to multicolinearity issues some predictors have been excluded and only two predictors have
been taken for further regression analysis. The remuneration and development and factors related
to students were the most predictors that contributed towards job satisfaction in this research.
5
These instruments are such as; Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Al Mutairi, 2013). Job Descriptive
Index (JDI) (Smith, 1969; Saba and Zafar, 2013), Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Malik, 2011), Job in General (JIG)
(Ssesanga and Garrett, 2005), Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), Warr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and Measure of
Job (WRSQ) Satisfaction (MJS) and Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (AJSQ) Al-Rubaish et al (2011).
73
The present research can be concluded by stating that there are numerous factors that affects the
academics job satisfaction but differs in its level and measure. Each university should follow a
certain criteria or tool that can identify these factors for its analysis, records and action. As it has
been seen in earlier chapters, the overall job satisfaction indicates that the majority of responders
agreed that they are satisfied with their jobs and not thinking of changing their current job. The
highest satisfaction scored construct by the academic staff was the factors related to their
students. The academics were very happy of their relationship and working with their students.
Most of the academic staffs are satisfied with their jobs as a whole but this does not mean that
they are satisfied with each job related aspects. Their overall satisfaction is mostly related to
personal interest rather than the services offered by the management. In the present research, for
example most of the academic staffs were not satisfied with the consultation for an additional
income from the management with a mean of 2.09, yet they were overall satisfied with their jobs
in which needs to be further considered by the management.
6.2 Contribution to knowledge

The review of the literature had clearly identified the possible factors that might influence
academic job satisfaction in higher education. Some researchers have based their studies by
considering job satisfaction theories such as Herzberg’s theory. The most common data
collection technique utilized in the literature was mainly through quantitative approach only
questionnaire survey. The present research contribution and knowledge was by identifying the
factors considering contextualization and it uniqueness were through the exploration of the
factors through qualitative approach (conducting interviews) and verified through quantitative
questionnaire survey. The researcher believes that more cohesive findings and some factors can
only be identified through interviews and deeply observe the academic staff behavior.
Finally, further research could consider digging a little bit deeper on the local factors by
interviewing more Omani academic staff (based on the Omanisation law) and observe their job
satisfaction whether it will be something different than the present research. Other studies also
can be done on studying the tools, techniques and measures used by the human resources
department towards their employees’ job satisfaction.
74
6.3 Recommendations
By the end of the research findings and based on the conclusion, the present research
recommends the followings:
Remuneration and development- Rewards are becoming a fundamental element of job

satisfaction. As staff members feel that pay and salary is not competitive and not satisfied with
additional income the remuneration and development strategy of the university should be
revised. This is a common issue to higher education institutes studied in the literature. For
example, Ssesangs and Garrett (2005) recommended that incentives and rewards have to be
maintained and reviewed constantly in Ugandan universities also. Another aspect that should be
taken as a priority is the promotion opportunities. The top management has to re-consider the
promotion opportunities through revising its policy and requirements in which balances the
teaching, administration and research activities.
Students- Although most of the academic staff claimed that their relationship and knowledge of
their students had a major contribution to their job satisfaction, this positive issue has to be well
controlled and monitored. For example, the student and staff ratio should not be un-balanced at
any time; otherwise this might have a negative impact on academic staff job satisfaction.
Management support-it is recommended that academic staff and management increase their
relationship. This is not only restricted to the top management it also includes the line managers
and HOD’s. This has also been supported by Oshagbemi (1997) where it was recommended in
this study that, academics should be involved with the higher management in terms setting out
policies and organizations decisions rather than depending on the line manager or HOD’s only.
Nevertheless, the management also has to realize that, each academic staffs hold different needs
and different levels of job satisfaction in which various ways of motivation have to be considered
(Paul and Phua, 2011).
Workload-it is recommended that, all line managers and department HOD’s to conduct regular
meetings to discuss the workload distribution. The extra work that is not related to the core
activities such as administration works has to be well monitored by the management (Paul and
Phua, 2011). Both management and academic staff have the responsibility to manage the
workload for a smoother working environment (Houston et al, 2006). Increasing the number of
75
department assistances could be another suggestion, in order to distribute equal responsibilities

and take up some administrative burden from academics.
Research and publications- some responders declared that they were not happy with their
research activities and publication due to their workload level. In order to ensure research
productivity, Comm and Mathaisal (2003) suggested that, the management can reward faculty
members who publishes refereed journal by releasing a course to reduce the teaching load and
therefore, increases research productivity.
Appreciate and acknowledge- the management of the university and HOD’s has to consider
various ways available to appreciate and acknowledge the commitment and achievement of their
academics. Stydom (2011) argues that, appreciation does not only involve the top management
and HOD’s it also includes Human Resources (HR) department. The former also indicates that,
in order to give a feeling of appreciation, their direct supervisors have to support them; the
management should treat them as colleagues rather than looking at their academic rank and they
should give them the recognition that they deserve even though the autonomy is present.
Furthermore, HOD’s should conduct a job analysis for each position and seek innovative ways to
enhance the work faculty members actually perform (Malik, 2011)
6.4 Limitations
Limitations are found in every research and study. The limitations of the present research can be
considered as the difficulties faced by the researcher towards completing this report successfully.
Employees’ job satisfaction is a common aspect that can be implemented and studied in any
organization or sector and in any country. However, for the purpose of this research the study is
specific to teaching faculties of higher education institutes in the academic sector due to the lack
of such studies in Oman. Additionally, due to the limited size of the research and time
availability, the study was carried out at a public university in Oman.
6.5 Self-reflection
This section aims to reflect upon the researchers own reflection on completing this research and
advice student colleagues on some challenges towards completing this dissertation. The selection
of an appropriate topic was a time consuming process in which it has to be approved by the
supervisor as early as possible. The second issue is the data collection procedure that requires a
quick action a good access to participants that requires a plan. On the other hand, this
76
dissertation is one of the best experiences the researcher have ever had, because the knowledge
had expanded through the readings, research and meeting new people.
77
References
1. Adenkie, A.A. (2011). Organizational Climate and job Satisfaction among Academic
Staff in some selected private Universities in Southwest Nigeria. Thesis, Covenant
University, Nigeria.
2. Aggarwal, N and Medury, Y. (2012). Job Satisfaction among Faculty: An approach to
study the intention to leave or stay in the University. Voice of Research. Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp.38-41.
3. Alhawary, F.A. Aborumman, A.H. (2011). Measuring the Effect of Academic
Satisfaction on Multi-Dimensional Commitment: A Case Study of Applied Science
Private University in Jordan. International Business Research. Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 153-
160.
4. Ahsan, N. Abdullah, Z. Fie, D.Y.G. and Alam, S.S. (2009). A Study of Job Satisfaction
among University Staff in Malaysia: Empirical Study. European Journal of Social
Sciences. Vol.8, No.1 pp. 121-131.
5. Akkaya, M. and Haydar, A. (2013). Analysis of Job Satisfaction of Academicians
through the use of Artificial Neural Networks. Natural and Applied Sciences. Vol.4,
No.1, pp.339-345.
6. Al Lamki, S.M. (2010). Higher Education in the Sultanate of Oman: The challenge of
access, equity and privatization. Journal of higher Education Policy and Management.
Vol.24, No.1, pp.75-86.
7. Al Mutairi, D.O. (2013). Role Conflict and Job Satisfaction: A study on Saudi Arabia
Universities.
8. Alqashan, H.F. (2013). Job Satisfaction among Counselors Working at stress Center-
Social Development Office- in Kuwait. Traumatology. Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 29-39.
9. Al Rubaish, A. Abdul Rahim, SI. Abumadini, M.S. and Wosornu, L. (2011). Academic
jon Satisfaction questionnaire: Construction and validation in Saudi Arabia. J Family
Community Med. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-7.
10. Al Rubaish, A. Abdul Rahim, S.I. Abumadini, M.S. and Wosornu, L. (2009). Job
Satisfaction among the Academic Staff of a Saudi University: An Evaluation study. J
Family Community Med. Vol. 16, No.3, pp. 97-103.
11. Al Shmeli, S.H. (2009). Higher Education in the Sultanate of Oman: Planning in the
Context of Globalization. International Institute for Educational Planning Policy Forum
2-3.
12. Amzat, I.H. and Idris, D.A.R. (2011). Structual equation models of management and
decision making styles with job satisfaction of academic staff in Malaysian Research
University. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 616-
645.
13. Armstrong, M. 1996,A handbook of personal management practices (6th ed). London:
Kogan.
14. Awang, z. and Ahmed, J.H. (2010). Modelling Job Satisfaction and Work Commitment
among Lecturers: A Case of UiTM Kelantan. Journal of Statistical Modeling and
analysis. Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 45-59.
15. Aziri, B. (2011). Job Satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and
Practice. Vol. 3, No.4, pp.77-86.
78
16. Azmi, F.T. and Sharma, G.M. (2012). Job related Dimensions and Faculty Members
Satisfaction at Indian Business Schools: An Empirical Study. International Journal of
Management and Resources. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 23-40.
17. Bentley, P. Coates, H. Dobson, I, Goedegebuure, L. and Meek, L. (2011). Factors
associated with job satisfaction amongst Australian university academics and future
workforce implications. Pre-publication
18. Bernard, B. (2012). Factors that determine academic staff retention and Commitment in
Private Tertiary institutions in Botswana: Empirical Review. Global Advanced Research
Journal of Management and Business Studies. Vol. 1, No.9, pp. 278-299.
19. Biggam, J. 2008, Succeeding with your Master’s Dissertation: A step-by-step handbook,
McGrow Hill, England.
20. Blum, M. and Naylor, J. (1986). Industrial Psychology: Its Theoretical and Social
Foundation. New York: Harper and Row.
21. Bolliger, D.U. and Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with
online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education. Vol. 30, No.1, pp.
103-116.
22. Castillo, J.X. Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job Satisfaction among Faculty. Journal
of Agricultural Education. Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 65-74.
23. Comm, C.L. and Mathaisel, D.F.X. (2003). A case study of the implications of faculty
workload and compensation for improving academic quality. The international Journal
of Educational Management. Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 200-210.
24. Chen, S.H. Shiau, J.Y. Yang, C.C. and Wang H.H. (2006). The development of an
employee satisfaction model for higher education. The Total Quality Management
Magazine. Vol. 18. No. 5, pp. 484-500.
25. Dabre, M.C. Bharne, P.K. and Phuse, S.D. (2012). Job Satisfaction Model for the
Teaching Employees in Academic Institutes Using Expert System. International Journal
of Computer Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 19-22.
26. Donn, G and Issan, S. (2007). Higher Education in Transition: Gender and Change in the
Sultanate of Oman. Scottish Educational Review. Issue 39[2] [Accessed 22August 2013],
available: http://www.scotedreview.org.uk/view_issue.php?id=39[2]
27. Easton, V.J. and McColl, J.H. (1997).Statistics Glossary, STEPS [Accessed 09 October
2013], available at: http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/sampling.html#clustsamp
28. English dictionary (2013). Definition of higher education, [Accessed 20 August 2013],
available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/higher+education
29. Fox, N, Hunn, A. and Mathers, N. (2009). Sampling and Sample Size Calculation. The
NHR Research Design Service for the East Midlands. National institute for Health
Research.
30. Garland, B.E. Mccarty, W.P. and Zhao, R. (2009). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment in Prisons: An examination of Psychological Staff, Teachers, and Unit
Management Staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior. Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 163-183.
31. Ghaffar, A. Ameer, B. Arshad, N. and Urooj, F. (2013). Factors Affecting Job
Satisfaction level of Academic staff in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.
4, No.6, pp. 181-203.
32. Guildfors, J.P. (1973). Fundamental statistics in Psychology and education, McGrow-
Hill: New York, USA.
79
33. Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). Conceptualizing Faculty Job Satisfaction: Components, Theories,
and Outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research. Vol. No.105, pp. 5-20.
34. Harppner, P.P. and Heppner, M.J. (2004). Writing and Publishing your Thesis,
Dissertation & Research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Thomson,
USA.
35. Houston, D. Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. (2006). Academic Staff Workloads and Job
Satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 17-30.
36. Ismail, N. (2012), Organizational commitment and Job Satisfaction among Staff of
Higher Education Learning Education Institutes in Kelantan. MSc of Human Resource
Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia. thesis
37. Juwaheer, T.D. and Nunkoo, R. (2010). Assessing Employee Satisfaction in Higher
Education: the case of Academics of the University of Mauritus. International Research
Symposium in Service Management. Vol.24, No.27, pp. 1-30.
38. Kaliski, B.S. (2007). Encyclopedia of Business and Finance, Second Edition, Thompson
Gale, Detroit, p.446.
39. Khalid, S. Irshad, M.Z. and Mahmood, B. (2012). Job satisfaction among Academic
Staff: A comparative analysis between Public and Private Sector Universities of Punjab,
Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 7, No.1, pp. 126-136.
40. Kinman, G. (2001). Pressure Points: A review of research on stressors and strains in UK
academics. Educational Psychology. Vol. 21, No.4, pp. 473-492.
41. Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette, M., Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
42. Ma, W. (July 2012). Factors affecting the motivation of TEFL Academics in higher
Education in China. Thesis, faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology.
43. Machado-Taylor, M.L. Soares, V.M. Ferreira, J.B. and Gouveia, O.M.R. (2010). What
factors of satisfaction and motivation are affecting the development of the academic
career in Portuguese higher education institutes?. Revista De Administracao Publica
(RAP). Vo.45, No.1, pp.33-44.
44. Malik, N. (2011). A study on Job Satisfaction Factors of Faculty Members at the
University of Balochiston. Journal of research in Education. Vol. 21, No.2, pp.49-57.
45. Maniram, R. (2007).
46. Marom, R.B Gorodeisky, G.H. Haim, A.B. and Godder, E. (2006). Identification, Job
Satisfaction and Work motivation among Tutors at the Open University of Israel. The
International Review of research in Open Distance Learning. Vol. 7, No.2,
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/302/617
47. Maniram, R. (2007). An investigation into the factors affecting job satisfaction at the
KwaZulu Natal Further Education and Training Collge- SWINTON CAMPUS. UNISA
48. Mehboob, F. Azhar, S.M. and Bhutto, N.A. (2011). Factors affecting Job Satisfaction
among Faculty Memebers. 3rd SAICON Conference Proceedings Version
Ihttp://saicon2011.ciitlahore.edu.pk/Proceedings.htm
49. Mustafa, N. (2013). The Influence of Financial Reward on Job Satisfaction among
Academic Staffs at Public Universities in Kelantan, Malaysia. International Journal of
Business and Social Science. Vol. 4, No.3, pp.244-248.
50. Noell, N.H. (1967). Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory of Job Satisfaction. Defense Systems
Management School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia US.
80
51. Noordin, F. (2009). Levels of Job Satisfaction amongst Malaysian Academic staff. Asian
Social Science. Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 122-128.
52. Nunnallym J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
53. OECD, (2003). Glossary of statistical terms: academic staff. [Accessed 20 August 2013],
available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=10
54. Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from
UK universities. International journal of Social Economics. Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 1210-
1232.
55. Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item
measures?. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 388-403.
56. Oshagbemi, T. (1997a). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher Education.
Education+ Training. Vol. 39, No. 9, pp.354-359.
57. Oshagbemi, T. (1997b). Job Satisfaction Profiles of University Teachers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 27-39.
58. Oshagbemi, T. (1997c). Academics and their Managers: A Comprehensive Study in Job
Satisfaction. MCB University. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 108-123.
59. Paul, E.P. and Phua, S.K. (2011). Lecturers job satisfaction in a public tertiary institution
in Singapore: ambivalent and non-ambivalent relationships between job satisfaction and
demographic variables. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Vol. 33,
No. 2, pp. 141-151.
60. Qasim, S. Cheema, F. and Syed, N.A. (2012). Exploring Factors Affecting employees Job
Satisfaction at Work. Journal of Management and Social Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 31-
39.
61. Queens’s government (2013). Definition of higher education, department of Education,
Training and Employment, Australia. [Accessed 20 August 2013] available at:
http://education.qld.gov.au/students/higher-education/qld/definition.html
62. Randhawa, G. (2007). Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions:
An Empirical Analysis. Indian Management Studies journal. Vol.11, pp. 149-159.
63. Rehaman, K. Rehman, Z.U. Saif, N. Khan, A.S. Nawaz, A. Rehman, S.U. (2013).
Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment: A theoretical Model for
Academicians in HEI of Developing Countries like Pakistan. International Journal of
Academic Research in Accounting, finance and Management Sciences. Vol. 3, No.1, pp.
88-89.
64. Saba, I. (2011). Measuring the job Satisfaction Level of the Academic Staff in
Bahawalpur Colleges. International journal of Academic Research in business and Social
Sciences. Vol.1, No.1, pp.
65. Saba, I. and Zafar, O. (2013). Analysing Job Satisfaction Level of the Academic Staff: A
Case Study of Public and Private Universities of Punjab, Pakistan. International
SAMANM Journal of Marketing and Management. Vol.1, No.2, pp. 12-23.
66. Sadeghi, A. Zaidatol, A.L.P. Habibah, E. and Foo, S.F. (2012). Demographic Analysis on
Academic Staffs Job Satisfaction in Malaysian Research Universities. Social Sciences
and Humanities. Vol. 20, No. , pp.1-20.
67. Schulze, S. (2006). Factors influencing the job satisfaction of academics in higher
education. SAJHE. Vol.20, No.2, pp. 318-335.
68. Sohail, M.T. and Delin, H. (2013). Job Satisfaction surrounded by Academics Staff: a
case study of Job Satisfaction of Academics staff of the GCUL, Pakistan.
81
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. Vol. 4, No.11, pp. 126-

137.
69. Spector, P.E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and Practice
(3rd Ed). New York: Wiley & Sons.
70. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences,
Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
71. Ssesanga, K. and Garrett, R.M. (2005). Job Satisfaction of University academics:
Perspectives from Uganda. Higher Education. Vol. 50, pp. 33-56.
72. Strydom, A. (November 2011). The Job Satisfaction of Academic Staff Members on
Fixed-Term Employment Contracts at South African Higher Education Institutes. Thesis
University of the Free State, Faculty of Education.
73.Taha, H. 2011. [Accessed 22 September 2013], available at:
http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201102249981/Economics/oman-
developing-higher-education-diversifying-economy.html
74. Toker, B. (2009). Job Satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey.
Quality Assurance in Education. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 156-169.
75. Tu, L. Plaisent, M. Bernard, P. and Maguiraga, L. (2005). Comparative age differences of
job satisfaction on faculty at higher education level. International Journal of Educational
Management. Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 259-267.
76. Usop, A.M. Kadtong, M.L. and Usop, D.A.S.O. (2013). The Significant relationship
between work performance and Job Satisfaction in Philippines. International Journal of
Human Resource. Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 9-16.
77. Wikipedia, (2013). Definition of higher education [Accessed 20 August 2013], available
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education
78. Wilson, J.H. (2008). Instructor Attitudes toward students: Job Satisfaction and student
Outcomes. College teaching. Vol. 56, No. 4 pp. 225-255.[Accessed 30 October 2013],
available at:http://singingemotions.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/instructor-attitudes-
toward-students-job-satisfaction-and-student-outcomes/
79. Wong, E.S.K. (2009). Case Study of Factors Influencing Jobs Satisfaction in Two
Malaysian Universities. International Business Research. Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 86-98.
80. Yong, K.K. (2002). Factors affecting Job Satisfaction of the Academic Staff in a local
College of Kuching. Thesis research, faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak.
81. Zabarauskaite,R.(2010).http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2011/12/LT1112019I.htm
82
Appendices
Appendix one- research structure
Research Structure
Introduction-History and background, Research problem, Research Chapter

importance, Research aim, Research objectives, Research scope and one
limitations, Key words and definitions
Review of Literature-Introduction, the Status of Higher education in Oman, Chapter

understanding the concept of JS, the Significance of Job Satisfaction in higher
education, theories on Job Satisfaction, Factors influencing academic job two
satisfaction in HEI’s.
Conceptual framework-Introduction, literature review, exploratory Chapter

qualitative approach, Hypothesis three
Research strategies-Introduction, data collection, framework of data Chapter

analysis, overall research methods design four
Survey findings: Description, Analysis and Synthesis Results- Introduction, Chapter

survey finding framework, description, analysis and synthesis five
Conclusion –Introduction, research objectives: summary of findings and

Chapter
conclusion. six
I
Appendix two- a. factors influencing academic staff job satisfaction

Factors affecting job satisfaction among Factors affecting job satisfaction Factors affecting job satisfaction Factors influencing faculty
faculty memebers(Mehboob et al) level of academic staff in Pakistan of the academic staff in a local satisfaction with online teaching
(Ghaffar et al, 2013) college in Kuching (Yong, 2002) and learning in higher education
(Bolliger and Wasilik, 2009)
Intrinsic (motivators)- achievement, Work, salary and compensation, Work commitment, emotional Student related factors such as ,
responsibility, recognition, job security, working condition commitment, age, size of the Instructor related factors such as
advancement, work itself and relationship with coworkers, organization, recognition, self-gratification, intellectual
promotional opportunities internal factors, monetary challenge, interest in using
Extrinsic (Hygine) working condition,
rewards, working environment, technology, recognition, reliable
salary, interpersonal relationship,
social relationship, job security, infrastructure and technology,
policies/ administration and supervision
Job Prospect, other factors Institution related factor such as
workload, adequate
compensation, equitable reward
system for promotion and tenure,
policies, and course quality
Factors influencing the job satisfaction of Factors that determine academic Job satisfaction among academic Measuring the job satisfaction level of
academic in higher education (Schulze, staff retention and commitment in staff in private universities in the academic staff in Bahawalpur
2006) private tertiary institutions in Malaysia (Santhapparaj and Colleges(Saba, 2011)
Botswana: Empirical review Alam, 2005)

(Bernard, 2012)
Teaching, research, community service, Non-pecuniary aspects of Pay, promotion, fringe benefits, Work itself, pay, working
promotions, management and academic work, relation with working condition, support of conditions, job security,
II
leadership, coworkers behavior, physical supervisors, pay and fringe research, support of teaching, coworkers, promotion
conditions and support facilities, general benefits, intrinsic job factors, gender opportunities
job satisfaction good working conditions, verity,
freedom to use own initiative,
seeing tangible outcomes from
their jobs, autonomy,
opportunities to do research and
control of their research works,
career prospects, collaboration
and flexibility of working hours,
good physical working
conditions, helping people, job
security, family friendly
practices, nature and tenure of
contact, career breaks,
citizenship, hours of work and
less involvement in
administrative work
III
Factors Authors
Chen Aggarwal Awang Ghaffar Yong, Strydom, Saba Reh Khalid Oshagbemi, Toker,
et al, and and et al 2002 2011 and man et et al, 1997 2009
2006; Medury, Ahmed, 2006 Zafar al, 2013 2012
2012 2010 2013
Pay and benefits, √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

remuneration,
financial
security, salary
Organization √ √
vision
Result feedback √ √
and motivation
Management √ √ √
system
Work √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
environment,
work condition
Respect, moral √ √ √
values
Workload √
Relationship, co- √
IV
workers
Potential √
Job security √ √ √ √
Promotional √ √ √ √ √
opportunities
Demography √
(age, gender,
years of
teaching)
Knowledge √
Control √
Psychology √
Financial √
Task, activity √ √
Emotional well √
being
Autonomy √
Physical √ √
resources,
working
V
facilities
Challenges and √
accomplishments
Work itself √
Supervision, √ √ √ √
HOD behavior
teaching √
research √
Administration √
and management
Other aspects √
Independence √
Variety √
Social status √
Social service √
Authority √
VI
Ability √
utilization
Compensation √
VII
b. Factors affecting academic staff job satisfaction models
Teacher
Satisfaction
Work Pay and Management Result

environme benefits systems feedback
nt and
motivation
Respect Organization
vision
Figure 17 - Teacher SatisfactionModel #1
(Chen et al, 2006; Aggarwal and Medury, 2012)
Areas influencing job

satisfaction
Potential Remuneration Environment

Workload
Relationship Management
Figure 18- Areas influencing job satisfaction Model #2

(Awang and Ahmed, 2010)
Attitudes toward the job
Salary Working Promotional

Job security
condition opportunities
Figure 19- Attitudes toward the job Model #3
(Ghaffar et al, 2013)
Areas influencing job satisfaction
Knowledge Control Psychology Financial
Task

(Yong, 2002)
VIII
Areas influencing job satisfaction
Emotional Autonomy Physical Job and

well-being resources financial
security
Well Challenges and
managed accomplishments
enviro
(Strydom, 2011)
Employee job satisfaction
Work itself Salary Promotion Working

opportunities condition
Job security
Figure 22- Employee job satisfaction Model #6

(Saba and Zafar, 2013)
Overall job satisfaction
Work Pay Supervision Promotion
Work
Co-Workers
environment
Figure23- Overall job satisfaction Model#7
(Rehman et al, 2013;Khalid et al, 2012)
Overall job satisfaction
University Respect and Relationship

Teamwork
vision recognition with colleagues
Incentives Work Management

environment support
Figure24- Overall job satisfaction Model #8

(Alhawary and Aborumman, 2011)
IX
Appendix three- Qualitative approach
Interview questions and sample
Q.1. Age (optional)
56years old
Q2. How long have you been working as an academic staff?
I have worked in this profession for 31 years, 7 years in Oman and 24 years in Pakistan
Q3. What do you teach?
It’s an earth science department so I teach Geology
Q4. What are the things that make you happy at your current job?
There are many things that makes me happy in my profession such as my interaction with
students, working in projects and research with students, monitoring students, I feel very good
talking to them.
Q5. What are the things that make you unhappy or least happy at your job?
I don’t know…. But maybe spending much time on grading and assignments marking every
week although it’s part of my job I have to do it, it’s not that I am unhappy about it but it’s just
affects my time to do some other work. Also the long committee meetings during semester time,
it takes time from my own research it really consumes time, these meetings are affecting my
research time and process.
Q6. Are there any other points you would like to add to support my research?
Well, we have to spend a lot of time in research because that adds more value to the university at
the end of the day I like this profession.
X
Appendix four- Quantitative approach

Dear Respected Academic faculty members,
As the importance of Higher Education in Oman is notably expanding I, Ziyana Ali Al Hinai a
Project Management student at the British University in Dubai, invites you to participate in a
research project under the title of ‘Studying factors that influences academic staff job
satisfaction in Higher Education Institute in the Sultanate of Oman’.
The research aims to explore and measure the factor that influences job satisfaction of academic
faculty members in an Omani public university and your contribution is extremely appreciated
and valued.
Kindlybe informed that, the questionnaire survey has been divided into four sections and you are
requested to only select one answer out of the 5 satisfaction scale options for each question. The
maximum duration to complete this questionnaire is 7-10 minutes. All the information that will
be provided through the questionnaires will remain CONFIDENTIALand will not be used for
any other purposes other than research field.
Thank you for your time and participation
Yours faithfully,
Ziyana Ali AlHinai (Researcher)
XI
Section 1- Demographic information

(Please tick ONE answer only)
Age Less than 30 years 30-50 years old Over 50 years old
old
Qualification Master degree PhD oOthers
Gender Male Female
Years of Less than 10 years 10-25 years

experience
in your
current job
Over 25 years Less than 10

years
Academic Lecturer Assistant

rank professor
Associate professor Professor
Section 2- Remuneration and Development

Highly Satisfied Partially Not Not at all

satisfied Satisfied satisfied satisfied
(5) (3) (2) (1)

(4)
Pay, salary and benefit

packages
Promotion opportunities
XII
Support from the management

and university for family
package and offers
Research funds
Support for conference

attendance
Consulting opportunities for

additional income
Section3- Management support

(5) (3) (2) (1)

(4)
The appreciation and

recognition from the
management
Teamwork activities with the

management
Facilities provided for

academic staff in the university
(e.g. admin, and equipment
support, refreshments, sports
club etc.)
Non-academic social activities

at your department
Your relationship with your line

manager / HOD / supervisor
(Students)
Interaction with your students
Student mentoring
XIII
Your students achievement and

success
Acknowledgement and
recognition from students
Students level of knowledge
Working in projects with

students
(Colleagues)
Your colleagues attitude

towards their job
Support from your colleagues

in your activities
Your colleagues interest in

teaching
Academic communication
among colleagues
Personal relationship with

colleagues
Overall team work activities in

your department

(5) (3) (2) (1)

(4)
(Workload)
Encouragement you get to carry

out research activities
Amount of research you have

published
XIV
Teaching delivery and syllabus
Time spent on assignments

marking and grading
The level of workload
The number of meetings to

attend during the semesters
Time spent on administration

work and activities
(Status of job)
Support from the management

and university for family
package and offers
Your status in academic circle
Pleasantness of work
environment
Overall status of being an

academic in my family and
society
Section4- Academic general job satisfaction

Highly Agree Partially Disagree Highly
agree agree disagree
(5) (3) (1)

(4) (2)
I don’t feel like changing my

job
I like being an academic staff
My job gives me a feeling of

personal accomplishment
XV
My job makes good use of my

skills and abilities
I have the tools and resources to

do my job well
On my job, I have clearly

defined quality goals
I love my job
End of survey
 Thank you for your participation 
Appendix five- SPSS results

o Correlation analysis
Correlations
Rem1 Mngmt Student Colleagues Workload1 Status1 JS

** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation 1 .763 .412 .720 .772 .763 .676
Rem1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** * ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .763 1 .362 .844 .689 .760 .702
Mngmt Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** * ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .412 .362 1 .494 .407 .457 .535
Student Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .013 .000 .005 .001 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .720 .844 .494 1 .708 .800 .717
Colleagues Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .772 .689 .407 .708 1 .766 .751
Workload1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .005 .000 .000 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .763 .760 .457 .800 .766 1 .704
Status1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
** ** ** ** ** **
Pearson Correlation .676 .702 .535 .717 .751 .704 1
JS Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
XVI
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
o Regression analysis (Including all variables)
a
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.077 3.290 .327 .745
Rem1 -.017 .247 -.012 -.071 .944
Mngmt .385 .301 .242 1.278 .209
1 Student .338 .162 .223 2.090 .043
Colleagues .118 .276 .085 .429 .670
Workload1 .419 .165 .404 2.537 .015
Status1 .089 .326 .049 .274 .786
o Revised regression analysis (Two variables only)
b
Model Summary
Mod R R Adjusted R Std. Error Change Statistics Durbin-

el Square Square of the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F Watson
Estimate Change Change Change
a
1 .732 .536 .514 3.951 .536 24.839 2 43 .000 2.072
a. Predictors: (Constant), Student, Rem1

b. Dependent Variable: JS
XVII
a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

b
Regression 775.479 2 387.739 24.839 .000
1 Residual 671.239 43 15.610
Total 1446.717 45
b. Predictors: (Constant), Student, Rem1
a
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.167 3.604 1.156 .254
1 Rem1 .798 .166 .549 4.811 .000
Student .468 .173 .309 2.710 .010
a
Residuals Statistics
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 10.97 32.96 26.37 4.151 46

Residual -9.564 10.223 .000 3.862 46
Std. Predicted Value -3.711 1.587 .000 1.000 46
Std. Residual -2.421 2.587 .000 .978 46
a
Coefficients
Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Rem1 .830 1.205

1
Student .830 1.205
XVIII
XIX
XX

MGT 1105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGT 1105

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGT 1105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Influencing Academic Staff Job Satisfaction of Higher

Education in the Sultanate of Oman

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

Table 1Conceptual framework breakdown ................................................................................................. 29

Figure 1The importance of Higher Education in Oman.............................................................................. 10

AJSQ-Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

BUiD- The British University in Dubai

GCC- Gulf Cooperation Countries

HEI- Higher Education Institutes

HR- Human Resources

JIG- Job in General

JDI-Job Descriptive Index

JSI- Job Satisfaction Index

KSA- Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

MoHE- Ministry of Higher Education

MSQ-Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

OLS- Ordinary Least Squares

SPSS- Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UK- united Kingdom

VIF-Variance Inflation Factor

WRSQ -Warr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and Measure of Job

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 History and background

1.2 Research problem

"Let there be education even if it is under the shades of trees”.

(Ministry of Higher Education, 2013).

1.4 Research aim and objectives

1. To review the importance and status of Higher Education Institutes in Oman,

4. To assess the above identified job satisfaction factors on HEI’s in Oman,

1.5 Research scope

Chapter three(conceptual framework) - this chapter is considered to be a continuous process of

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

2.1 The importance and status of Higher Education in Oman

2.1.1 Development of human resources (Omanisation)

The vision for Oman’s Economy: Oman 2020

The vision Human Resources Development

 The weakness and inadequacy of basic education

 Dissemination, encouragement, and patronage of

 Encouragement and motivation of the University

Figure 1The importance of Higher Education in Oman

2.2 Understanding the concept of Job Satisfaction

2.3 The significance of academic staff job satisfaction in HEI

2.4 Theories on Job Satisfaction

2.4.1 Herzberg or two-factor theory

Extrinsic factors (Hygiene)

2.4.2 Maslow’s theory

Figure 3Maslow's theory

2.5 Factors influencingacademic staff job satisfaction in higher education

demographic characteristics.Similar results was achieved by Tu et al (2005) which aimed to

2.6 Models on job Satisfaction

Chapter three: Conceptual framework

1) Models from the literature and,

Qualitative Models from

Interviews Models on job

Figure 4 Approach to Conceptual framework

(Developed by the researcher)

3.1 Factors derived from the literature

Figure5Major factors derived from the literature

3.2 Factors explored through the qualitative data

3.2.1 Factors related to remuneration and development