3. FACETED AND OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION AMONG UNIVERSITY TEACHERS: A CASE STUDY OF LAAR CAMPUS, SINDH UNIVERSITY, PAKISTAN PRESENTED BY: ZEHRA KAZMI

4. ABSTRACT  To study the factors affecting job satisfaction level among the faculty members of Laar Campus, University of Sindh Jamshoro.  Measure against high Turnover intentions among faculty member of Campus.  Study was based on faceted as well as overall approach to job satisfaction.

5. ■15 out of 20 faculty members were involved in this study. ■Dissatisfaction level with Organizational Policies especially career development related policies proved to be the biggest source of overall job satisfaction moderator. ■Overall job satisfication with mean value of 28.73 was found lying between moderate and high level.

6. PROBLEM BACKGROUND ■ This study was prompted by special circumstances at the Sindh University Laar Campus, Badin over the recent years wherein turnover rate had touched to 25% rate. ■ Lack of satisfaction with the job was an overall reason known for this turnover. ■ For this study, it was decided to use the faceted model of job satisfaction (George & Jones 1998). ■ Beside Faceted Model of job satisfication, Discrepancy Model (John 1996) and Expectatious Model (Vecchio 1995) were used.

7. JOB FACETS 1)J ob security, 2)career advancement opportunities, 3)job related achievements, 4)role of immediate supervisor, 5)recognition of achievements, 6)interpersonal relations with colleagues, 7)pay, 8)work-load, 9)Working conditions 10) organizational policies.

8. RELEVENT LITERATURE ■ Kokko and Guerrier(1994) – Satisfaction is a multidimensional concept. ■ John(1996) – Employee can be more or less satisfied with various facets of the job. ■ Smith(1996) – The individual facets of a job, ultimately accumulate in the form of overall Job Satisfaction; Offsetting attitudes.

9. Hypotheses ■ H1: Concern for the job security is a cause of job dissatisfaction among the faculty members. ■ H2: Perceived lack of opportunity for career advancement has affected job satisfaction level of the faculty members negatively. ■ H3: Absence of feeling of achievement among the faculty members exists which has adversely affected the job satisfaction level of faculty members. ■ H4: the faculty members perceive unhealthy supervisory practices prevail in the campus which have created job dissatisfaction among them..

10. ■ H5: The faculty members perceive lack of recognition of their achievements that is a source of job dissatisfaction among them. ■ H6: The faculty members are experiencing poor interpersonal relations which are a source of job dissatisfaction among them. ■ H7: The faculty members perceive their pay is inequitable that causes job dissatisfaction among them. ■ H8: The faculty members experience perceived work over-load that makes them feel dissatisfied with their job.

11. ■ H9: The faculty members perceive the working conditions uncomfortable which is a source of job dissatisfaction among them. ■ H10: The faculty members do not agree with University policies that is a source of job dissatisfaction among them.

12. RESEARCH METHOD ■ 15 available members actively participated. ■ A close ended questionnaire containing 10 job facets with likert scale was presentated to each respondent in person. ■ Study is based on primary data. ■ Interview were also conducted.

13. Hypotheses Testing & Discussion INTENSITY P-Value H1 J ob security 73%0.670 H2 career advancement opportunities 55%0.005 H3Job related achievement62%0.009 H4Role of immediate supervisor87%0.334 H5Recognition of achievements78%0.334 H6Interpersonal relations with colleagues83%0.217 H7Pay78%0.546 H8Work Load82%0.082 H9Working conditions67%0.189 H1 0 University policies53%0.000

14. ■ P-value 0.005 provides scientific evidence to accept H2. Discontent with the career advancement opportunities prevails among regular teachers and contractual Teaching Assistants equally. ■ H3 is also accepted owing to P Value of 0.009 suggesting a significant negative difference of feeling of achievement on the job satisfaction level among the faculty members ■ H10 relating to the university policies factor with P-Value 0.000 stands accepted. University policies seem to emerge as a strong cause of faculty members’ job dissatisfaction.

15. Overall job satisfaction seems to be the ultimate determinant of people’s behavior towards the job. Accordingly, value for overall job satisfaction was calculated in the table. FACTOR MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION Overall Job Satisfaction 28.73 3.41 A score for overall Job Satisfaction

16. Conclusion ■ The concept of overall job satisfaction suggests that some job facets may be more important than others for any given worker. ■ Major part of discontent among the faculty members came from the human resource related policies especially the career growth related ones. ■ High level dissatisfaction rate on HR policies has made it overall job satisfaction among the faculty members more critical. ■ An effective measure in the HRD policies area especially the career growth related steps will be helpful in enhancing overall job satisfaction level among the faculty members at the Laar campus.