Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff: A Comparative Analysis between Public and Private Sector Universities of Punjab, Pakistan

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between various facets of job satisfaction among university academicians in Punjab Province, Pakistan, and how these differences affect overall job satisfaction of academicians in selected universities of Province Punjab.Design/ methodology/approach-The Population for this study comprised of academicians working in universities chartered by Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. A total of 150 questionnaires were sent to potential respondents chosen from 4 universities. A total of 108 usable questionnaires were returned giving a response rate of 72 percent.Findings-Results of this study indicate that a pay differential does exist between private and public universities in Pakistan. Academicians in private sector universities were more satisfied with their pay, supervision, and promotional opportunities than the academicians of public university. On the other hand, academicians in public sector universities were found more satisfied with co-worker's behavior and job security.Research Limitations-This research is limited to the educational sector. Thus, the results cannot be generalized to other industrial sector of the economy. This study needs to be replicated in other industries using the same method.Practical implications-The study offers practical suggestions to the educational institutions and human resource manager on how to pay, promote, retain and maintain equity in the organizations.

Job Satisfaction among Academicians at Business Colleges Operating in Kuwait

“…The table further shows academicians who work for private universities are more satisfied than those who work for governmental universities. In this respect, Khalid et al (2012) found academicians in private universities are more satisfied with their pay, supervision, and promotional opportunities than academicians in public universities. The result is explained on the grounds that most of the academic staff in private universities are non-Kuwaitis.…”

“…Based on the above theories, several studies have developed to identify factors behind job satisfaction among academic staff. They were undertaken in various places (see for example, UK: Oshagbemi, 1996, Ward and Sloane 2000, Stevens 2005; Canada: Leckie and Brett 1997; Turkey: Kusku 2003, Bayram et al 2010, Toker 2011, Saygi et al 2011 Khalid et al 2012, Mehmood et al 2012, Sohail and Delin 2013, Syed and Ahmedani 2013; India. Shamra and Manani 2012; Jordan: Abushaira 2012; Vietnam: Wang et al 2014;Shin and Jung 2014 1 ).…”

“…Malik concluded that demographic characteristics such as age, years of experience, academic rank, degree are negligibly related to overall job satisfaction. Another study conducted by Khalid et al (2012) examined the relationship between various facets of job satisfaction among university academicians in Pakistan. They found pay differential exists between private and public universities in Pakistan and observed that academicians in private universities are more satisfied with their pay, supervision, and promotional opportunities than academicians in public university.…”

Untitled

“…Thus, unfair or lack of promotion opportunities do affect particularly young employees who are looking for more work experiences from various institutions. For example, a study on the effect of promotion opportunities in influencing job satisfaction among academics in higher public institutions in New Zealand by Khalid et al (2011) indicates that academicians in private universities were more satisfied with their promotional opportunities, pay and supervision than the academicians of public university.…”

A Pilot Study: Vital Methodological Issues

“…However, Griffee (2012) mentioned that a ty pical guideline is that 0.3 at the threshold, 0.5 or higher is adequate, and 0.7 or higher is high. George and Mallery (2003) provide more detailed categories of reliability va lues as rules of thumb (i.e., >0.9 "Excellent", >0.8 "Good", >0.7 "Acceptable", >0.6 "Questionable", >0.5 "Poor", while <0.5 "Unacceptable") (as cited in Khalid et al 2012). From another standpoint, there are works in the literatures recom mends using specific values of reliability according to the nature of the study since the reliability relies on a large ex tent on the use that is to be made of the results.…”