International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2020, pp. 285~291

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20509  285

Factors influencing job satisfaction among academic staffs

Ong Choon Hee, Chong Hui Shi, Tan Owee Kowang, Goh Chin Fei, Lim Lee Ping
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between pay and
benefits, work environment, top management leadership, workload and job
Received Feb 4, 2020 satisfaction among academic staffs in a private academic institution in
Revised Mar 17, 2020 Malaysia. Motivation-Hygiene Theory, Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy theory
Accepted Apr 30, 2020 and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory were used to establish
the theoretical framework of this study. Questionnaire survey method was
employed to collect data which yielded 82 responses in this study. Statistical
Keywords: Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to perform data analysis
throughout the study. All study variables were found to have significant
Job satisfaction positive relationships with job satisfaction among academic staffs in
Pay and benefits the selected institution. Top management leadership was discovered to have
Top management leadership the most significant relationship with job satisfaction. The findings of this
Work environment research provide a clear message to the top management that leadership plays
Workload an important role in enhancing job satisfaction of the academic staffs.
Hence, it is suggested that the institution management should adopt
appropriate leadership style and establish effective strategies and policies that
aim to increase job satisfaction and performance of the academic staffs.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Ong Choon Hee,
Azman Hashim International Business School,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru, 81310, Malaysia.
Email: ongchoonhee@gmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, job satisfaction has been a general topic in many countries around the world.
An individual’s job performance is generally depends on his or her job satisfaction level. One’s
organizational performance will increase if the employee job satisfaction level is high. Referring to
researchers [1], individuals who are pleased with their current works incline to be more motivated and
willing to exert more efforts in performing their duties. Job satisfaction is able to influence employees’
attitude, loyalty, support and dedication towards the organization. There were many studies about job
satisfaction globally and in various sectors such as banking, construction, manufacturing, hotels,
transportation and etc. However, this paper concentrates on education sector. Education is a crucial sector in
developing a country. It undeniable that education is vital for our future generation. Therefore, education
system of a nation must be well established so that it could to deliver desired results and produce high quality
of education. According to researchers [2], academic staffs were involved in determining the quality of
education and play important roles in one’s country educational development. If academic staffs are unhappy
with their works, it will directly affect the output of their works [2]. Thus, it is essential to measure job
satisfaction level of the academic staffs and determine significant factors that associated with their job
satisfaction. In this research, the authors have selected a private academic institution in Malaysia to to
explore determinants that enable private colleges to achieve greater ratings in the Malaysian Quality

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

286  ISSN: 2252-8822

Evaluation System for Private Colleges (MyQUEST). As suggested by researchers [3], opportunity for
promotion, salary, work environment, workload, relationship with staffs, style of administration were among
the factors that influenced academic staffs’ job satisfaction. By using Motivation-Hygiene Theory, Maslow’s
Needs Hierarchy Theory, and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), few factors (i.e. pay and benefits, work
environment, top management leadership, workload) have been chosen to establish the theoretical framework
in predicting job satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a significant subject for every organization in various industries. Many
organizations or superiors wanted to know whether their workers or subordinates are contented with their
jobs. Job satisfaction is understood as accomplishment of tasks by enployees who obtain sense of
achievement from their workplace [4]. Researchers have explained job satisfaction as the good feeling one
gets when one has a job he or she enjoys doing it [5]. Job satisfaction is also a constructive emotional domain
derived from the personal opinions of the employees about their work. Basically, it is measuring how
a person finds his task and how far he is able to perform the task. According to researchers [3], they
mentioned that job satisfaction is a feeling about the career of an individual or about specific aspects of
the job that will impact productivity and job performance of an organization. Job satisfaction is an internal
feeling of a worker about his job [6]. Job satisfaction is also a psychological response of a work situation [5].
Academic staffs’ job satisfaction is vital as it is a foundation of inspiration that needed for continuous effort
in accomplishing the tasks required for a good teacher. The works that academic staffs need to perform are
preparing lectures notes, day-to-day lesson plan, marking of assignments as well as to keep track and monitor
students’ progress and their performance. Apart from performing all these tasks, academic staffs will also
have to keep themselves updated with current knowledge and educational development. Academic staffs are
likely to act as a counsellor and role model to students. Therefore, job satisfaction is crucial for academic
staffs as it will positively impact their job performance in educating, developing and shaping future leaders.

2.2. Pay and benefits

Pay and benefits are common financial incentives [7]. Benefits are generally defined as non-
monetary compensation [8]. Pay and benefits are essential elements that used to motivate employees in
the organization. It helps to increase workers’ performance and productivity. A research done by
researcher [9] reported that basic salaries and allowances affects academic staffs’ job satisfaction.
The finding shows that pay and benefits are significantly related to job satisfaction. The finding is in line
with the research of Dulebohn’s [10]. It was discovered that salary not only allows individuals to meet their
fundamental needs but provides job satisfaction at a higher level as well. Researcher [11] also found that on
top of pay and allowances, fringe benefits also influence one’s job satisfaction. On the same note, Researcher
[12] confirmed that rewards and benefits are significantly associated with job satisfaction. However, poor
compensation and benefits will have negative impacts on job satisfaction [13]. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H1: Pay and benefits have a significant relationship with job satisfaction.

2.3. Work environment

Work environment is explained as the setting, situation and environment in which people work [14].
It is also referred to the environment where it comprises people, tools, and other workplace physical
components [14]. According to researcher [15], work environment is explained as a place where people work
together to complete tasks and achieve common goals. Researcher [9] discovered that academic staff’s job
satisfaction is related to work environemnt. Similarly, researchers [16] echoed that good work environment
contributes towards academic staffs’ job satisfaction regardless of types of schools, colleges and
demographics. Likewise, researchers [6, 17] emphasized that supportive working condition improves
academic staffs’ job satisfaction. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Work environment has a significant relationship with job satisfaction.

2.4. Top management leadership

Top management is referred to a group of individuals at the top level who are managing
an organization [18]. Top management leadership is seen as a social communicating process between
the leader and his followers. Generally, leaders influence the achievement of an organization's goals via
change, innovation, engagement and motivational activities [19, 20]. According to researchers [21], top
management’s leadership style is important in influencing academic staffs’ job satisfaction. Top management
is responsible to improve academic staffs’ job satisfaction. Research study done by [21] stated that if top

Int. J. Eval. & Res. Educ. Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2020: 285 - 291
Int J Eval & Res Educ. ISSN: 2252-8822  287

management provides positive feedback, it will have positive impact towards academic staffs’ job
satisfaction. Top management’s capability to allocate work equally has direct effect on job satisfaction as
well. The study implies that principal leadership or top management leadership is one of the significant
determinants in predicting teachers and academic staffs’ job satisfaction and it also proved that academic
staffs who work with supportive top management have higher job satisfaction [21]. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:
H3: Top Management leadership has a significant relationship with job satisfaction.

2.5. Workload
Workload is defined as the number of tasks given to an individual over a specified period of
time [22]. Workload is generally referred to the intensity of the job assignments [23]. Researchers [24]
mentioned that heavy workload and tremendous administrative work will cause job dissatisfaction among
academic staffs. The work itself may also contribute towards job satisfaction. The study of [25] stated that
lower workload will increase job satisfaction level among academic staffs. In another study of [21], they
argued that tremendous workload would have negatively influenced academic staffs’ performance and job
satisfaction.; the lower the workload, the higher the job satisfaction. On the contrary, increasing the workload
of academic staffs will result in low efficiency and job dissatisfaction. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H4: Workload has a significant relationship with job satisfaction.

3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Population and sample
The purpose of this research study is to explore factors that influence job satisfaction among
academic staffs in a private academic institution in Malaysia. The total population of the institution consists
of 100 academic staffs who are employed by this private college. Based on the sampling table by
researchers [26], the desired sample size required for a population of 100 is 80. Simple random sampling
method was employed to draw the respondents from the population. The researcher has successfully
collected 82 responses from the respondents.

3.2. Measures
The measurement items of job satisfaction (8 items) were adapted from the studies of [27, 28].
The aim of these measures is to provide the opportunity for academic staffs to feedback their feelings and
indicate the level of agreement whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with their works. In this research,
there are four predictor constructs to be measured, namely pay and benefits, work environment, top
management leadership and workload. The measures of pay and benefits (6 items) were selected and
modified from researcher [29], while the items of work environment (5 items) were adapted from [27].
Measures for top management leadership (6 items) and workload (5 items) were adapted from [30, 31]
respectively. A 5-point Likert scale was utilized to measure all the study variables.

3.3. Data collection procedure

Data collection was conducted by using self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was
prepared in English to best convey the contents to the respondents. The researcher personally administered
the survey questionnaires. The completed questionnaires were collected one day after the respondents
received the questionnaires. The questions were divided into three categories that consist of demographic
profile, job satisfaction, and determinants of job satisfaction (i.e. pay and benefits, work environment, top
management leadership and workload). In this study, validity and reliability test, correlation and multiple
regression analysis were employed for data analysis. We use Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
for data analysis.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Profile of the respondents
Based on the 82 responses were generated, 29 of the respondents were males and constituted 35.4%
of the total respondents, while the rest of them (53, 64.6%) were females. Most of the participants were aged
between 24 to 35 years old and formed 50% of the total respondents. In the categories of ethnicity, most of
the respondents were Chinese (56, 68.3%), followed by Indian (19, 23.2%) and Malay (7, 8.5%).
In the category of academic qualification, 23 (28%) respondents were bachelor’s degree holders, followed by
56 and 3 of the respondents were master’s degree and doctoral degree holders respectively. Majority of
the participants (31, 37.8%) were having 6-10 years of work experience while 30 respondents (36.6%) were

Factors influencing job satisfaction among academic staffs (Ong Choon Hee)
288  ISSN: 2252-8822

categorized between 1-5 years of length of service. Other respondents were ranging from less than 1 year of
work experience (6, 7.3%), 11-15 years (13, 15.9%), 16-20 years (1, 1.2%) and above 20 years (1, 1.2%).

4.2. Factor analysis

In this research, there are four predictor constructs namely pay and benefits, work environment, top
management leadership and workload. Validity test was conducted by using factor analysis with Principal
Component Analysis (PCA). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was used to test the construct valideity.
The KMO/MSA values indicate the strength among the constructs. Workload was eliminated during
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) owing to cross laodings. As shown in Table 1, the results indicated that
the value of KMO/MSA is 0.823 for the predictor constructs. According to [32], values of KMO/MSA above
0.8 are suitable for factor analysis. The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity supported the factor analysis with
p < 0.001. The results of the factor analysis disclosed that there are 3 factors extracted. All factor loadings
were above 0.50 and in the range of 0.741 to 0.894. Factor 1 is referred to top management leadership
(6 items) whereas factor 2 is identified as pay and benefits (4 items) and finally factor 3 is recognized as
work environment (2 items). According to the analysis results, the percentages of variance explained for top
management leadership, pay and benefits and work environment are 35.906%, 25.622% and 15.282% and
recorded 76.810% of the cumulative variance. The Eigenvalues (i.e. 6.133, 1.870 and 1.214) for the factors
were above one thus supporting the factor loading results.

Table 1. Factor analysis for the independent variables

Factor Loading
Item Description
1 2 3
PB1 I am satisfied with my current pay. 0.876
PB3 I am satisfied with my most recent pay increment. 0.857
PB43 I am satisfied with the pay structure offered by the college. 0.819
PB65 I am paid fairly for my job with the current job responsibilities. 0.775
WE3 My office or my area of work is comfortable and safe. 0.894
WE4 The amenities such as closets etc. in my office are clean. 0.825
TML1 My superior encourages me to become a good team player. 0.872
TML2 My superior leads by example. 0.857
TML3 My superior considered my personal feelings. 0.771
TML4 My superior is aware and pay attention to my needs and concerns. 0.798
TML5 My superior communicates freely. 0.824
TML6 I make decision on how to perform my job task. 0.741
Eigenvalue 6.133 1.870 1.214
Percentage of Variance Explained (%) 35.906 25.622 15.282
Cumulative Percentage (%) 35.906 61.528 76.810
Reliability Coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) 0.922 0.897 0.789
Note: KMO = 0.823, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity; Approx.Chi-Square = 684.007, p < 0.001.

Table 2 indicates a single factor loading for job satisfaction that comprises 8 items. Factors loadings
for the items were greater than 0.50 and ranging from 0.603 to 0.823. As indicated in Table 2, the results
showed that the value KMO/MSA is higher than 0.80 (i.e. 0.880) for job satisfaction. Next, Bartlett’s test of
Sphericity was found statistically significant at p < 0.001 and thus supporting the factorability of
the correlation matrix. Percentage of variance explained for the items is 54.271 with Eigenvalue of 4.342.
Both Table 1 and Table 2 were showing the extracted factors have greatest importance in factor analysis.
Hence, the construct validity has been confirmed by the statistical analysis results.
Reliability test is carried out in this study after factor analysis. Reliability is tested by using
Cronbach’s Alpha. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha is generally varied from zero to one. If the value is near to
one, indicating that the strength of the variable’s internal consistency is greater [33]. According to
researchers [33], the acceptable value of Cronbach’s Alpha is from 0.70 to 0.95. A reliability coefficient
which exceeds 0.70 is deemed acceptable [34]. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for
the independent variables (i.e. top management leadership, pay and benefits and work environment) were
0.922, 0.897 and 0.789 respectively (see Table 1); while the Cronbach’s Alpha for the dependent
variable (Job Satisfaction) was 0.871 (see Table 2). As suggested by researcher [34], the results confirmed
the establishment of the constructs’ reliability.

Int. J. Eval. & Res. Educ. Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2020: 285 - 291
Int J Eval & Res Educ. ISSN: 2252-8822  289

Table 2. Factor analysis for job satisfaction

Factor Loading
Item Description
1
JS1 I am satisfied with my job. 0.810
JS2 I enjoy my work most of the days. 0.784
JS3 The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 0.603
JS4 My job description reflects what I really do. 0.788
JS5 I get a feeling of accomplishment from my job. 0.647
JS6 I feel valued by senior management. 0.823
JS7 My immediate superior lets me know how I am doing. 0.673
JS8 I get full credit for the work I do. 0.735
Eigenvalue 4.342
Percentage of Variance Explained (%) 54.271
Cumulative Percentage (%) 54.271
Reliability Coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) 0.871
Note: KMO = 0.880, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity; Approx.Chi-Square = 285.844, p < 0.001.

4.3. Correlation analysis

Pearson correlation coefficient is an indicator used to determine the degree and the direction of
correlation between two study variables; the closer the coefficients to an absolute value of 1, the higher
the degree of correlation [35]. Table 3 shows that top management leadership (r=0.758, p<0.01) has the
strongest correlation with job satisfaction, followed by pay and benefits (r=0.556, p<0.01) and work
environment (r=0.538, p<0.01). The results show positive intercorrelations among the variables.

Table 3. Correlation between the independent variables and job satisfaction

(PB) (WE) (TML) (JS)
Pay and Benefits (PB) 1
Work Environment (WE) 0.362** 1
Top Management Leadership (TML) 0.495** 0.465** 1
Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.556** 0.538** 0.758** 1
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.4. Multiple regression analysis

To conduct hypothesis testing, we used multiple regression analysis which is appropriate for two or
more predicting variables [36]. Table 4 shows the results of multiple regression analysis of the study
variables. The value of the coefficient of determination (R2=0.649) indicates that 64.9% of the variance of
job satisfaction can be explained by the research model. The analysis shows that top management leadership
(β=0.563, p<0.001) has the strongest significant relationship with job satisfaction, followed by pay and
benefits (β=0.204, p<0.05) and work environment (β=0.203, p<0.01). Therefore, hypothesis H1, H2 and H3
are accepted.

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for the independent variables and job satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables Hypothesis Result
Beta, β Sig. B Std. Error
Pay and Benefits (PB) 0.204* 0.011 0.141 0.054 H1 Accepted
Work Environment (WE) 0.203** 0.010 0.142 0.054 H2 Accepted
Top Management Leadership (TML) 0.563*** 0.000 0.448 0.066 H3 Accepted
F value 48.115
R Square 0.649
***Significant at the 0.001 level, **Significant at the 0.01 level, *Significant at the 0.05 level.

This research explored factors that influence job satisfaction among academic staffs in a private
institution in Malaysia. The findings revealed that there are significant relationships between pay and
benefits, work environment, top management leadership and the taget construct job satisfaction.
The current level of job satisfaction among academic staffs was high (M = 3.7896, SD = 0.5944). Although
all predictors (i.e. pay and benefits, work environment and top management leadership) were significantly
associated with job satisfaction (p<0.05), however, the beta values for pay and benefits, work environment
and top management leadership were differed at 0.204, 0.203 and 0.563 respectively. Thus, the findings
suggested that top management leadership remains the major determinant that influences job satisfaction.
In this study, the finding showed that there is a significant positive relationship between pay and benefits and
Factors influencing job satisfaction among academic staffs (Ong Choon Hee)
290  ISSN: 2252-8822

job satisfaction (β=0.204, p<0.05). It explains that the higher the pay and benefits, the higher the job
satisfaction of the academic staffs. This finding is consistent with the studies conducted by
researchers [9, 10, 37], where they discovered that pay and benefits were the most important contributor
towards job satisfaction. Next, work environment was found to be significantly related to job satisfaction
(β=0.203, p<0.01). This result is similar to the studies of [5, 12] where it was mentioned that conducive work
environment motivates academic staffs to achieve higher job satisfaction. Finally, top management leadership
was found to have a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction (β=0.563, p<0.001). This finding
again was supported by researchers [38] where they concurred that top management leadership plays
a significant role in improving academic staffs’ job satisfaction. If superiors are having bad temper and lack
of understanding, it will further deteriorate job dissatisfaction. In summary, this research provides important
information to the management of the academic institution to find ways to increase job satisfaction level
among its academic staffs. Pay and benefits, work environment and top management leadership are the areas
that should be given extra attention if the management would like to produce quality academic staffs with
greater job satisfaction.

5. CONCLUSION
This study has successfully identified significant factors that influence job satisfaction among
the academic staffs in Malaysia. The findings of this study generate managerial actions that focus on pay and
benefits, work environment and top management leadership to increase job satisfaction among the academic
staffs. This reasearch is in tandem with the direction of the Malaysian Quality Evaluation System for Private
Colleges (MyQUEST) to elevate the quality level of education and achieve six stars in the rating system.
This study has some limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, the research
context and findings were limited to one academic institution in Malaysia. Therefore, the results may not able
to generalize for the entire education industry in the country. In future, researchers may consider increasing
the population to cover more institutions in Malaysia. In addition, based on different theories that have been
explained previously, there are other determinants such as mentorship, coaching, career planning and job
rotation that may influence job satisfaction. Hence, it is suggested that more variables can be explored to
predict job satisfaction in this research context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Malaysian Ministry of Education and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(GUP Tier 2: 15J99) for providing financial support to publish this paper.

REFERENCES
[1] Aslan, A. S., Shaukat, M. Z., Ahmed, I., Shah, I. M., and Mahfar, M., “Job satisfactions of academics in Malaysian
Public Universities,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 114, pp. 154-158, 2014.
[2] Naseem, I. and Salman, M., “Measuring the job satisfaction level of academic staff,” Journal of Business &
Financial Affairs, vol. 4, no. 2, 2015.
[3] Awang, Z., Ahmad, J. H.,and Zin, N.M., “Modelling job satisfaction and work commitment among lecturers:
A case of UiTM Kelantan,” Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Statistical Sciences, pp. 241-255, 2010.
[4] Saba, I., “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, 2011.
[5] Umaru, R. I., and Ombugus, D. A., “Determinants of job satisfaction of colleges of education lecturers: A Study of
Nasarawa State College of Education,” Akwanga, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8-13, 2017.
[6] Chamundeswari, S., “Job satisfaction and performance of school teachers,” International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 420-428, 2013.
[7] Tessema, M. T., Ready, K. J., and Embaye, A. B., “The effects of employee recognition, pay, and benefits on job
satisfaction: Cross country evidence,” Journal of Business and Economics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2013.
[8] Klonoski, R., “Defining employee benefits: A managerial perspective,” International Journal of Human Resource
Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2016.
[9] Makena Muguongo, M., “Effects of compensation on job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in Maara
Sub - County of Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya,” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 3, no. 6,
p. 47, 2015.
[10] Dulebohn, J. H. and Werling, S. E., “Compensation research past, present and future,” Human Resource
Management Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 191-207, 2007.
[11] Linh, L. H., “Researching on factors affecting job satisfaction of lecturers in Universities of Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam,” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1056-1062, 2018.

Int. J. Eval. & Res. Educ. Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2020: 285 - 291
Int J Eval & Res Educ. ISSN: 2252-8822  291

[12] Shah, M. J., “Job satisfaction and motivation of teachers of public educational institutions,” International Journal
of Business and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 271-282, 2012.
[13] Hee, O.C., Cheng, T.Y., Yaw, C.C., Gee, W.V., Kamaludin, S.M., and Prabhagaran, J.R., “The influence of human
resource management practices on career satisfaction: evidence from Malaysia,” International Review of
Management and Marketing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 517-521, 2016.
[14] Oludeyi, O. S., “A review of literature on work environment and work commitment: Implication for future research
in Citadels of learning,” Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 32-46, 2015.
[15] Abdul, P. and Awan, G,. “Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks
and Insurance Companies in Pakistan,” European Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 329-346, 2015.
[16] Anastasiou, S. and Papakonstantinou, G., “Factors affecting job satisfaction, stress and work performance of
secondary education teachers in Epirus, NW Greece,” International Journal of Management in Education, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 37, 2014.
[17] Naz, S., “Factors affecting teachers job satisfaction,” Market Forces, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 44-59, 2017.
[18] Ghani, J. A., and Khamis, N. K., “Role of senior management in TQM implementation in the Malaysian small and
medium enterprises,” pp. 15-20, 2008.
[19] Glamuzina, M., “Levels of leadership development and top management's effectiveness: Is there a clear-cut
relationship?” Management, vol. 20, pp. 89-132, 2015.
[20] Hee, O.C., Ibrahim, R., Kowang, T.O., and Fei, G.C., “Employee engagement as a mediator between
transformational leadership and employee performance,” Asian Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 441-448, 2018.
[21] You, S., Kim, A. Y., and Lim, S. A., “Job satisfaction among secondary teachers in Korea: Effects of teachers’
sense of efficacy and school culture,” Educational Management Administration and Leadership, vol. 45, no. 2,
pp. 284-297, 2017.
[22] Dasgupta, P. R., “Volatility of workload on employee performance and significance of motivation: IT sector,”
Science Journal of Business and Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-7, 2013.
[23] Saad, S., Shah, H., Jaffari, A. R., Aziz, J., Ejaz, W., Ul-haq, I., and Raza, S. N., “Workload and performance of
employees,” Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 256-267, 2011.
[24] Lam, B. H., and Yan, H. F., “Beginning teachers' job satisfaction: the impact of school-based factors,” teacher
development, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 333-348, 2011.
[25] Anghelache, V., “Factors which determine the level of job satisfaction for Kindergarten teachers. Preliminary
study,” Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 127, pp. 47-52, 2014.
[26] Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W., “Determining sample size for research activities,” Educational and Psychological
Measurement, vol. 30, pp. 607-610, 1970.
[27] Lottes, D. and Brown, D., “Western Kentucky University Staff satisfaction survey,” 2008. Retrieved on Mar 23,
2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.wku.edu/staffcouncil/documents/staffsatisfactionreport2008.pdf
[28] City, D. Q., “Job satisfaction level of k to 12 teachers utilizing multiple statistical tools,” Asia Pacific Journal of
Contemporary Education and Communication Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2017.
[29] Munisamy, S. “Identifying factors that influences job performance amongst employees in oil palm plantation,”
2013. [Online]. Available: http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/979/1/library-document-979.pdf
[30] Asghar, S. and Oino, I., “Leadership styles and job satisfaction,” 2017. Retrieved on March 23, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/91137/1/MPRA_paper_91137.pdf
[31] Al-Rubaish, A. M., Rahim, S.I., Abumadini, M.S., and Wosornu, L., “Academic job satisfaction questionnaire:
Construction and validation in Saudi Arabia,” Journal of Family and Community Medicine, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 1-7, 2011.
[32] Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N., The multivariate social scientist, London: Sage, 1999.
[33] Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R., “Making sense of cronbach's alpha,” International Journal of Medical Education,
vol. 2, pp. 53–55, 2011.
[34] Andrew, G., “Analysing data using SPSS: A practical guide for those unfortunate enough to have to actually do it,”
Sheffield Hallam University, pp. 1-94, 2008.
[35] Arkkelin, D., “Using SPSS to understand research and data analysis,” Psychology Curricular Materials, p. 194,
2014. [Online]. Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.139.2050&rep=rep1&type=
pdf
[36] Statistics Solutions, “Conduct and interpret a multiple linear regression,” pp. 1-5, 2016. Retrieved on Mar 2019.
[Online]. Available: http://www.statisticssolutions.com/multiple-linear-regression/
[37] Fessehatsion, P. W. and Bahta, D. T., “Factors affecting academic job satisfaction in the public institutions of
higher education, eritrea,” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 6 , no. 11, pp. 1-6, 2016.
[38] You, S., Kim, A. Y., and Lim, S. A., “Job satisfaction among secondary teachers in Korea: Effects of teachers’
sense of efficacy and school culture,” Educational Management Administration and Leadership, vol. 45, no. 2,
pp. 284-297, 2017.

Factors influencing job satisfaction among academic staffs (Ong Choon Hee)