.flné. i . .. ma 137?. ... 9);»...111... . A ..... . gm!’>l..~§s&»f:3a..§2«uflfl I. . .. 55555 x. funny: hhhh.s.u.o..)§.utkr5a|nnaa .hka..lx..ufl.ain)s.lih_i.;>hu.$s 2:9:wfiffinr8ll..llw?rizu§la rs V: J:t).u.ru.fln§bizé31\§§§xléfi|fll D a ax... $.52...- H:i> 1‘)“ J. .1318: I... D‘.! .. 53lvv¢ialiis 1 .. .uifl): . t’lu “Hafiz“. .valzw trying amp“. H.07h,b..rhfl§p "fiaflflmpfibuhtfia!ilrgh 54...!“ adult: i a; . i4)...”- ..1n.. 2: .3! Ev}.:..~tl’1.tlnt§. a... court}... I... at; £1.05 5.1.: Pr): ....~Ar..tdflllau .Iafins:§$¢¥s.3 9... 52‘ i..35u05).l$03135 ....... . 1.1.1.36 (it, 3 . 7.1.7.... » v. 11;. «v. a. .....uv‘.¥:nlivv8.an 1 19): 1010...... . ‘l‘lé {If . 3a 3.. «$tf...f§7 “5.1.5. 3.3.... aviainlltkflriag :vaibsmfi4xase 32.15.55! Illa“) . . x. m. In. ... .1 .2598. 1.... mm .0- ‘3‘0 t. :3! A 9A... a a 0.559 Kandahar... .. .. .2.......... raw.u¥mfl4fimu¢mmfi .. “inguibnwmuéfimmarzbn Stain". ,nwam....§ firs»... .. _ c 1,515. tat - .uflwaizvfifiz L»! 153...: V1,». WA}: Pfihfihqflval-wia:fl.b .irvgpd): "Pi-«r1025: s . 030.. 5%.. . r... a 7.. ‘c:3..99.~LP$§1 I. l. i. a 03k): a... . .éi?’3t0fix>£fl.ht0):tl§3~:t~?€it igtrl‘l‘: .I ’{Ill 7.. 1 ..J\¢91_.L..Ja.§t.lrci!7ut .3... ka...‘ 5... lac-.3...anti-11:2?55)::1I¥lssal‘eaaaitnzxé!tnFun . '2!- Ixfi a. \... .. a .L 73.3.2751. '53:: . §. . .3‘..on:.§ja.da3a§vf 5v 1... dug-15..."! g r. . ’39....«5 1.2.3:) Elli... .. 3.13.. 3 I. 1...... . a ‘03:...9407 3:52.... 1.... .MVlu L... v z z» .5. s . 13.. It: 53 ‘7’ J a Y 9541611.... Initali .51.. 0; 2...": k: 1. $109.! if. 1 .. «.32 0.2.3.4 30:9 (3 ’11-‘38... .3 «an. .r ~. .. I. trltziifl g}. .53.?!” If 9 ‘2 . .‘ 1.53;. 93...;6‘9‘ ‘I 1 f. . ... . .. vhf..fl§1n.a.: 33.3%,: :zllazr...rtut. :1: .. g1“. . ., 03.“..051... 3 L§tili€i$ubb a .6]: . s. . . . It :93 xx . aha. 33.5.9.9}... . 01. i 1!“: “.14! a 3... Sasétglyk’u . 5.... .35 3.. . t i .l, . . . . u... . flunk...“ fifiuhzj:§bfifiummu fifir...fiufif.d {anysnb saiubfiu. 3kg, .3...) . I V1511... ._ 9a... ,. .. . .. . t #4....“ ~31 ~51...r:..ra. 5131... a 1 > 1 at... . :1 . . r _ . l l 2.2...‘2: 3"!- E {23.3.1.JDA t. iatrz. 3|. (1" . . y a . . “07H... a.fi.:.... h“ .1. ll... 252135351 JAIN-.32.: . llvl‘. 3.... .rauflfim ) M 35.31.... ,r. fir... , z... -.wsfi..w.4.u..§fih. . Luanfinu, 3.. .mhfii....,l . guns... .3....us.s...liu 31:52.... .: updbainfifirahfiéi3.3;". . .. ahrhhhk influx... 53.3.7.2 . .:!.(zo!.5.fi.{331.hflni.€ .s r .3 . q .. ill.» IA—Q ... . . . n n ' . . .1 . t . .. . . . .. .3 .1. E. ta... — v 1 1.4.1597: . . . .. finfl. : 7 .3... hung... i... gisafimn : . . v .5: 2... .91...- . "hrfiaxtei Shitty.“ .53.). 44.... '01. It y:.§¢¢l.lx..vy.a9: lithium...“ . .)wmy1fluwflvdfinnakw.iua3:?hr:al .g’o’awitv::r .. n5 19:91:12.3 n»), 13):; '?N“.l.ltv .fimvtth.lhwullaivmn v:1~\¢’l;£v\? ’Ivo’.‘ta' 3" V '1’ 5". Jaw-11v1a..n1.r:-.NF§I..1‘. .gnuamnguwxfl 0J3 . {mm 223? .02.)... . .. ..,.......4vvl.l$.2Nr)§4w!r:.fl1i.fia§ 1 .5....?.:-€.21 .5).-. . 31.14!!! g .3555! 5.3.55.9)! 9.53.. 9). . 3!!! .I «v1.5.3.3: Stating?! «Pr.§;£u§; ..... P! .- ~vi’lf.’.-.v 3.0“. .gzaivcf .. ziifx5th7lhovi:i . . .5111) l) . . x .54.; Y I) it}!!! . It; . 10.1.3301 .. $.59: .; .......7;.rt.t. Iéadorflghxfa . i?‘§§...fl§xl. .13....3. n . . 80?)... :( ., 1%.? ff . gfiafiual‘fvjfi! iv'fil‘fitk‘ufi 5 Y 1 .,..m£t5tro.$:.|.i.llll.av1ztu .l. o S. ......0.lr‘. . .. ..... ft . (1.4.5 .51 {ii}. . It). >Z—nlt7ék a??? .32:‘: al A)... 193...?» (of; #3))! it"s.fl 1.3.2.5.... . . 2.. z. . it): ODDS-05.41. I‘ll?) , . .giggfln _ ...;;...§I..t....rf.r . 3 Bizsinsu fix 3...... 3... . ll . .‘Ilvzll‘v‘i‘vz’ tl . . . . If? 9...; .. it: . iiagébrflii I. E41 l‘i airlift .Httipztzuuzhfls} s .33.. , 1&1... ‘ .‘f It", 2 fl "u..ffktn.§w.. . sf; . iiigill gin?!" 1.43.25 gtgi: . 9763.29.53.55... .. .u 5|... . g. ihduuobnzfifluulr}{\xrfo...l¥.t.‘2u. £1546... E’t‘i’i’. \ 2... g...” Pig-.51; fit. 3’73... 5.15.5). .1 . 5% 25ft) . .. pg! ,1: ' . \;.I i 15:10.... . iii; . {£3 . . n , 2;}; , 1|!- u :1, . ‘9'. . . ullngfiYi , . . .1556. .. {$919450 12:133..)4 2.1)....- E £3}, {71213)}. 1.";ng - . . .umr...‘ ._ 151.},‘g . . ig‘vg.¥{v . . fuukzuuyghvunufllai . :::: E is}??? 5% 29.. 1 . .nirniynuavatbfifigis a 1&3}; I. . iii... .. MP§53AJV g D592)... :i}:.; 11"}. .srfaty.‘ , (11.41}. .1..zcl.fl..t..1.)2-o...£}vl»15r3:)t$d.70¢1.{41 0...- 3.4“ . 33.11‘31..$.3).\‘l‘41.rl‘1£t$\v}§‘t P131. . , . i}§§vi,2.l.7.l)21~$2 . Jr . \ti}?~;;¢g’n1§3} .5113... .. . . , .150}: in; I“! 1.. 31. 3:}. .1» 3..) ...... , v5.1.5 2 1.. . ...i.:1....3$a .. 2:33.... .5 ; .3 3%.) , . . JOB SATISFACTION OF STAFF MEMBERS OF UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY IN MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA by Hamza Abdullah Ageel A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum QH7¢Z§ ABSTRACT JOB SATISFACTION OF STAFF MEMBERS OF UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY IN MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA by Hamza Abdullah Ageel The objective of the present study was to examine the overall job satisfaction of selected staff members at Umm Al-OUPa university in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, in order to determine the factors which give satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and to examine the relationship of selected demographic variables with job satisfaction. Questionnaires were distributed among Saudi and expatriate faculty in the Colleges of Education and Law, as well as administrators. Besides demographic and personal data, the questionnaire presented the dob Description Index, as developed by Smith et a]. (1969), as well as open ended questions about what attracted respondents to the job in the first place, under what conditions they would either stay or leave, and what aspects of the employment provide satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg's (1966) two factor theory of work motivation provided the theoretical basis of the analysis. In contrast to the resgmndents of Herzberg, it was found in the present study that ccnatent factors are related primarily to job dissatisfaction, whi le context factors are related primarily to job satisfaction. Hamza Abdullah Ageel It was suggested that the sudden expansion of higher education in a developing country might lead to greater attention with context factors (i.e., material rewards and trappings of the jobs) to the detriment of dealing with content factors, i.e., the intrinsic rewards associated with a job well done. In closing, a number of administrative and theoretical recommendations were presented for further action and research. COPYRIGHT BY AGEEL , HAMZA ABDULLAH 1982 2‘—-:—"$3i539EQL-———--;fi 1Z2fig:nanu:qfcfflflhgfgzrnostnuncthandYfiiInostéknzflmknt DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family, my wife, and my lovely son Omar, who made every effort possible to facilitate completion of my studies. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While only one name appears on the cover of this dissertation, the support and encouragement of many talented individuals have made this research project possible. It is only proper that they be acknowledged and publicly thanked, though thanks alone is hardly adequate for their efforts. First, my love and appreciation to my mother, my wife, and my son, without whose constant understanding, encouragement, part- nership and patience, this study would not have been possible. Secondly, to my government and to Umm Al-Qura University for support provided for my studies abroad. I particularly thank Dr. Muhammed Ghamdi, secretary general of Umm Al-Qura University, and Dr. Muhammed Shami, of the Educational Psychology Research Center. Thanks to each and every. member of my doctoral guidance «:ommittee: Dr. Howard W. Hickey, Dr. Ben A. Bohnhorst, Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, Dr. Julius Kovacs, and Dr. Louis Hekhuis. I thank in particular Dr. Hickey who guided my progress through my academic program, for his encouragement and ability to understand iii the trials and tribulations, the peaks and valleys of a graduate program. Dr. Hickey, you have influenced my thinking and chanced my life for the better. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Hartmut Gfinther for his assistance with the statistical analysis of the data; as well as Mr. Omar Bagour for his help with the translation of the questionnaire. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......OOOOOOO0.0............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INTRODUCTION .. ...... ....................................... Importance of the Study ....... ......................... Statement of the Problem ........ . ....... .. ......... .... Research Questions ............. ... ......... ...... ...... Hypotheses ............................................. 'Limitations of the Study ............................... Summary ................... ....... ...................... Organization of the Study .............................. SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................... ..... .. Locke's Studies of Job Satisfaction .................... Theories of Motivation and Job Satisfaction ............ Studies Applying Theories of Job Satisfaction .......... .Studies of Job Satisfaction in Academia ................ Factors with a Significant Effect on Job Satisfaction .. Instruments for the Determination of Job Satisfaction .. summary ......OOOOOOOCOO0.0000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Page 10 ll ll 13 21 26 27 33 35 DESIGNOF THE STUDY 0......-II...IO...IOOOOU0.00C..0.0IOOIOO Introduction cocoa...ouooooaoooooooooooouoooccoooooooooo SUbjectS IOQQIOOOIIOIOO...000.0.DOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOQOICOIC Procedure .00.....000000000.000.chootoooolootoooooooooll Instrument coco-ooooo-oooonIt...oooooonooc-oocoouooooolo Data Analysis .......................................... Summary ooo'oooo-oaoooooooo-ootoooooonoo-oo-ooooo-noouo- FINDINGS 0.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOCOIOIIOUO ..... .....OOI‘OOIOO Introduction ......‘C.........OI......OOOOOIOCIOOOOOCOUQ Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ......... Evaluation of Attractions and Distractions ............. Job Description Index .................................. Summary ................................................ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ Introduction ........................................... Discussion of Findings ................................. Conclusions ............................................ Administrative Recommendations ......................... Recoomendations for Futher Studies ..................... REFERENCES on...onloooooooooooooon‘ooooo-uonoooooococosooooo APPENDIX coo.cooooolaooooooooooooooocoo-ooooooooo-onnoooooo. A: (11 C: Arabic Version of the Questionnaire Used ............ English Translation of the Questionnaire Used ....... Attestation of Validity of Translation .............. 37 37 38 44 39 42 44 46 46 47 60 89 90 90 100 101 105 107 112 112 121 130 D: MANOVA: Job Description Index -- 1 2 \OOJQmUlhbw 11 12 13 Saudi and Expatriate Professors .................. Saudi and Expatriate Respondents ................. Saudi— and Foreign-Trained Saudi Professors ...... Saudi- and Foreign-Trained Professors ............ Saudi Faculty and Administrators ................. Saudi Faculty of Education and Law ............... Academic Rank of Saudi Professors ................ Academic Rank .................................... Academic Background in Saudi Professors .......... Academic Background ....... ................. ...... Faculty of Education and Law ... ..... ............. Saudi Faculty of Various Departments . ....... ..... Faculty of Various Departments ........ ........... 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 140 142 144 145 146 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Respondents ................................ Marital Status of Respondents .............................. Number of Dependents ....................................... Country Of High SChOOl 000.09.00.00...oooooooooooaoo-ouooono Country of College ......................................... Highest Degree oo-oo-o-cocoa-00.nooo-oooooo-oo.00.005.90.00. Country of Highest Degree .................................. Current JOb Situation ..... cocoa-o.coo-no.noon-00.00.00.000. Number of Years at Umm Al-Qura University .................. Number of Years in Current Position ........................ Type of Immediately Preceeding Employment .................. Country of Immediately Preceeding Employment ............... Time at Immediately Preceeding Employment .................. Relative Importance of Elements of Job Satisfaction ........ .Job Satisfaction -— in Saudi and Expatriate Respondents .................... in Faculty and Administrators .......................... and Academic Rank ......CIOOOOCOIUOOO00.0.0.........O‘OO and Educational Background ..................... viii 39 47 47 49 51 51 53 63 66 71 and Length of Service ................... and Family Size ......................... and Year of Birth ooooooooooooooooooooooo Benefits Associated with Current Position ... Factors that Attracted Respondent to Present Employment Factors that would Cause Respondent to Seek Other Employment ........ ..... ............ Factors with Aspects Aspects that would Cause Respondent to Stay Present Employment .................. of Job Giving Satisfaction .......... of Job Giving Dissatisfaction 00000.. 0.00000... 000000.... c a 74 75 76 79 80 82 84 86 86 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been a recent phenomenon. Thus, it is not beset by the confusion of intent that is encountered so widely in Western European countries concerning the ends of education, nor, so far, by problems of student politics. Since primary education began only in the late 19305, and a serious secondary education program was only conceived in 1953, it is natural that higher education was, at first, given a lower priority than general education. Although Mosques, in general, and the Great Mosques in Makkah and Madina, in particular, have been the learning institutions of higher education, the education in the Mosques was primarily religiously oriented (Ministry of Information, Saudi Arabia, 1977). However, by the late 19705, higher education was receiving a higher proportion of the education budget than previously. During the last two decades, institutions have been offering comprehensive higher education. The first higher education institution ever established in the Kingdom was the University of Riyadh which was established in 1957. Since then, a quick growth of community colleges, colleges of education, post-secondary technical training institutions and regular universities has taken place. Islamic University was founded in 1961; Iman Muhammad ibn Saud University in 1974; two universities, the University of Petroleum and Minerals, and King Faisal University, in 1975; and King Abdulaziz in 1967 (Walpole et 81., 1977). King Abdulaziz University was started in Jeddah, when a number of Saudi businessmen, convinced of the need for higher education and the part it would play in building the country, decided to found a university in the western province of the Kingdom. The government took it over in 1971. At the same time, the government gave the university administrative jurisdiction over two institutions in Makkah, formerly administered by the Ministry of Education: (a) the College of Education, and (b) the College of Shariah (Islamic Law), which were both incorporated as colleges of the university. Both colleges concentrate on the preparation of qualified teachers, the latter specializing in the training of judges. In late 1980, the government decided to seperate these two colleges from King Abdulaziz University, in order to open a new university in Makkak, named Umm Al-Qura University. The Saudi universities, offering B.A., B.S., M.A., and M.S. degrees have been mostly patterned after North American and Western institutions. Most of the local, as well as expatriate staff members have had their education in Western countries. The programs of studies at almost all campuses are being expanded. Now, more and more local youths who have been sent abroad for higher education are returning to take positions at every universtiy. According to one estimate at a universtiy in the Western region of the Kingdom, about fifty Saudies will be returning after completing their education in the West by the end of the year 1982. Importance of the Study Since the first higher education institutions in a formal, Western sense were only established beginning in 1957 in Saudi Arabia, the ministries in charge of the system face, as in other developing countries, a series of challenges (Albornoz, 1977; Maybury, 1975; Thompson and Fogel, 1976; Ward, 1974). One of the most serious challenges deals with human resource planning: how to train, attract, and retain a teaching, research and administrative staff, that, if not foreign itself, for quite some time in the future will have been trained abroad. Foreign and foreign trained staff encounter an administrative system which contrasts notably with the one they have experienced in the West. Saudi univesities tend to present a university structure characterized by bureaucracy; rules and regulations are inflexible, time consuming and change very slowly. Many of the adminstrative staff have not been abroad themselves, are overburdened with work, and may be perceived by their peers as being less than efficient. The status accorded to university teachers is notoriously low, which does not help in their relations with the student body. The students, in turn, appear to be less hard working and less ambitious then their counterparts abroad. The current state of university development requires the establishment of professional organizations, frequent professional meetings, and the allocation of more time for seminars. These factors affect the Saudi staff members, both in their job satisfaction and their morale. Competing offers from ministries other than higher education, as well as the opportunities in private business continuously tempt Saudi staff members to seek other employment opportunities. In the preceeding praragraphs, the researcher has alluded to some general concerns which prevail at various campuses. Systematic research and studies must be undertaken to meticulously survey the areas of job satisfaction of the university members, as well as to determine steps which may be taken to remove the hurdles wliich create job dissatisfaction. Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as a "pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‘s job or job experience" (p. 1300). This definition highlights one of the major questions addressed in job satisfaction research: Under what conditions does a positive or negative state arise? The present research attempts to address this question as is pertains to faculty and staff at a university in Saudi Arabia. Statement of the Problem The problem is to examine the overall job satisfaction of selected staff members at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, to determine the factors which give satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and to examine the relationship of selected demographic variables with job satisfaction. To the extent warranted by the results of this study, recommendations are to be offered to the administration for dealing more effectively with staff attrition. Research Questions The objective of the present study is to address the following questions about job satisfaction at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah: 10. 11. 12. the Is there a difference with respect to the relative importance of the various aspects of job satisfaction (payment, promotion, supervisor, colleagues, students, work)? Is there a difference in job satisfaction between university employees from Saudi Arabia and from other countries? Is there a difference in job satisfaction between employees who received their highest degree in Saudi Arabia and those who. received their highest degree outside the country? Is there a difference in job satisfaction between faculty and administrators? Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the academic rank held by the employee. Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the educational background of the employee? Is there a difference in job satisfaction between faculty in the College of Education and those in the College of Islamic Law? Is there a difference in job satisfaction between faculty from different departments? Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the length of service to the university? Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the length of service in the current position? Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the size of the family, i.e., the number of dependents? Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and the age of the employee? purpose of this study, job satisfaction will be ascertained in terms of the dob Description Index (JDI), as developed by Smith et a7. (1969), as well as through responses to a series of open-ended questions. The JDI considers five aspects as contributing to the overall job satisfaction: (a) work as such, (b) supervisor, (c) colleagues, (d) pay, and (e) promotion. A sixth dimension, students, will be included in the present study. A detailed description of this scale will be presented below (cf. p 33 ). Hypotheses In order to answer the research questions listed above, the following hypotheses will be tested: 1. HO There is no difference in the importance attributed to such aspects of job satisfaction, as payment, promotion, supervisor, colleagues, students and work. 2. Ho There is no difference in job satisfaction between university employees form Saudi Arabia and from other countries. 3. Ho There is no difference in job satisfaction between employees who received their highest degree in Saudi Arabia and those who did outside the country. 4. Ho There is no difference in job satisfaction between faculty and administrators. 10. 11. 12. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the academic rank held by the employee. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the educational background of the employee. Ho There is no difference in job satisfaction between faculty in the College of Education and those in the College of Islamic Law. Ho There is no difference in job satisfaction between faculty in different departments. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the length of service to the university. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the length of service in the current position. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the size of employee's family, i.e., the number of dependents he has. Ho There is no relationship between job satisfaction and the age of the employee. Limitations of the Study A possible methodological limitation of the present study is the degree of confidence claimed for the answers given by the respondents. To the extent that the author may have been perceived as part of the university administration, respondents may have felt compelled to- censor their criticism about the academic environment, especially the expatriate respondents. Considering the generalizability of the results, it must be noted that only male professors and administrators were surveyd, limiting the results to this population. On the other hand, given the structural similarities of Saudi universities, the present findings should be of interest to administrators at other universities of the Kingdom. Summary In this first chapter, a brief overview of the development of higher education in Saudi Arabia was presented. The importance of the study was considered in terms of the problems associated with attracting and retaining human resources within the the structure of the Saudi university system. This was followed by the presentation of the research questions, made explicit in 10 research hypotheses, and concluded with some considerations about the limitations of the present study. Organization of the Study This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The contents of the remaining four chapters are described in the following. The second chapter provides a selected review of the literature as related to the two major foci of this study. The third chapter presents the design, methodology and procedure used in the study. The fourth chapter reports the findings of the analysis of the data. The fifth and last chapter discusses the findings and offers conclusions, recommendations for further study, and implications for policy decisions. Chapter II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Locke’s Studies of dob Satisfaction The enormity and vastness of the literature on job satisfaction can be gauged from the fact that Locke reports "a total of 3,350 articles (or dissertations) on the subject to date" (1976, p. 1297). As the technique of effective and better management of human resources developed, and management began to show deeper and deeper interest in the cost effectiveness of its operations, a large variety of studies, both in the United States and abroad, were initiated to determine what makes workers give their best in job related situations. Coupled with this need for management was the fact that the first quarter of this century saw a steady evolution of interest in psychology. Human beings and their behavior became the center of interest of these studies. There were those psychologists who believed that the human mind was too <:omplex to be understood fully, and could at best be understood partially. Then, there were those who proposed that the mind was ruathing, except for what was manifested through observable behavior. Most job satisfaction theories employ either of these 11 12 two approaches, or a combination of the two. Locke points out that while systematic attempts to study the nature and causes of job satisfaction as such did not begin until the 19305, the important role played by a worker's attitude in determining his actions in the job situation was recognized long before (1976, p. 1298). The earliest attitude study, based on a definition of attitude as the individual's philosophy, is attributed to Taylor, who concluded that the worker "who received the highest possible earnings with the least amount of fatigue would be satisfied and productive" (ibid., p. 1298). This study was unique in the sense that instead of treating the workers' reaction to their job satisfaction in some kind of mechanistic manner, the study recognized that it is the mind more than the workers' mechanical behavior that should be the focus of any search for a meaningful understanding of why people behave in a situation the way they do. This fundamental assumption of the workers was confirmed in what has come to be known as the Hawthorne Study, namely that "workers have minds and that appraisals they make of the work situation affect their reaction to it" (ibid., p. 1299). The most fundamental contribution of the Hawthorne study has been to initiate a movement in human relations, a movement that "stressed the central importance of the supervisor and the work group in determining employee satisfaction and productivity" l3 (ibid., p. 1299). The view that human relations are central to job satisfaction became a dominant force only with the 19605, when research began to focus on vertical job enlargement. As Locke stated, "real satisfaction with the job could only be provided by allowing individuals enough responsibility and discretion to enable them to grow mentally" (ibid., p. 1299). The tools of analysis and observation have improved considearbly, and techniques of rapid analysis have advanced to the extent that the understanding of job satisfaction has improved tremendously, not only in terms of the concepts involved but also in terms of its real value to industry and institutions. Theories of Motivation and dob Satisfaction Locke's article provides a comprehensive theoretical outline within which satisfaction may be evaluated and identified. He defines job satisfaction as a "pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the approval of one's job or job experiences" (ibid., p. 1300). This definition is inextricably involved with two other significant concepts, namely morale and job involvement. The former has been defined by Locke as "an attitude of satisfaction with, desire to continue in, and willingness to strive for the goals of a particular group or organization" (ibid., p. 1300); while the latter term is defined as "a person who is involved in his job is one takes it 14 seriously, for whom important values are at stake in the job, whose moods and feelings are significantly affected by his job experiences and who is mentally preoccupied with his job" (p. 1301). Furthermore, Locke, who has provided us with the most penetrating look into the theoretical concepts underlying job satisfaction, points out which job dimensions have been identified by research. These are: work, pay, promotions, recognition, benefits, working conditions, supervision, co-worker's company and management. The question that has troubled researchers is, what model of these dimensions will constitute job satisfaction. The traditional approach assumes that job satisfaction is a continuum extending from satisfied to dissatisfied. Respondents would shift along this continuum, depending if they answered questions suggesting more or less satisfaction. An example is given by Carroll as follows: If a worker earns $200 per month and gets a $40 increase, he will be pushed further on the satisfaction continuum than if he only received a $20 increase. If he has his salary cut by $20, he will accordingly be pushed on the continuum toward the dissatisfaction end (1969[sic], p. 6). However, this rather direct approach cannot deal with such inconsistancies as leaving one job for another that pays less, or being dissatisfied with a raise that is not as high as was expected. Several theories have arisen in challenge to this traditional approach, two of which, process and content theory 15 will be considered in the following. The former "attempts to specify the types or classes of variables (needs, values, expectations, perceptions, etc.) considered causally relevant as well as how these variables combine to determine overall job satisfaction" (ibid., p. 1302); and the latter "attempts to specify the particular needs that must be satisfied or the values that must be attained for an individual to be satisfied with his job" (ibid., p. 1307). Obviously, the distinction between the two theories subsumes a distinction between values and needs. "A value is what a person consciously or subconsciously desires, wants, or seeks to attain" (ibid., p. 1304). Yet, on closer examination, one comes to recognize that "the ultimate biological function of man's values is to direct his actions and choises so as to satisfy his needs" (ibid., p. 1306). In light of the above analysis, Locke redefines job satisfaction essentially in terms of one's needs and values as resulting from the perception that one's job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of one's important job values, providing-and to the degree that those values are congruent with one's needs. 16 Process Theories From the perspective of the process theory, it is argued that "it is the degree to which the job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of the individual's needs that determines his degree of job satisfaction" (ibid., p. 1301). Needs are identified by Locke as "physical and psychological needs which are nothing but objective requirements of an organism's survival and well-being" (ibid., p. 1303). A slightly variant theory maintains that "it is the [perceived] job situation in relation to the individual's values that is the most direct determinant of job satisfaction" (ibid., p. 1304). Content Theories Content theories of job satisfaction are essentially summed up in Maslow's need hierarchy (1943) and Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1966). ,Masiow’s Theory of dob Satisfaction. Maslow bases his theory of job satisfaction on a hierarchy of needs, which is composed of the following five needs: 'psychological needs, safety needs, needs for love and belongingness, and the ineed for self-actua- lization'. Maslow arranged these needs in a hierarchy of 'potency' or dominance. That is, physiological needs are stJnDngest, followed by needs for safety, love, belongingness and 17 self-actualization. If the higher order needs are not satisfied, the individual would not seek to satisfy the next need in the hierarchy. So long as a hungry person's physiological needs remain unsatisfied, the need for safety is thrown to the wind. Thus, lower level needs remain dormant as long as the immediately preceeding needs actively vie for satisfaction. The problem with Maslow's hierarchy of needs is that, barring the satisfaction of the physiological need, there is no proof to show that other needs require satisfaction in the order specified by Maslow. Besides, one is not sure what precisely is meant by self-actua- lization in the context of job satisfaction. Furthermore, Maslow does not clearly distinguish between needs and values. In this regard, Locke adds, "It is not necessarily what a man needs but what he values most strongly that dominates his thoughts" (1976, p. 1309). Locke even questions whether the physiological need itself is the most dominant one: In the case of a teenager who takes drugs which he knows to be dangerous solely in order to 'belong' to his peer group, the desire for acceptance (and the illusion of self-esteem) clearly overrides his desire for physical well-being (ibid.). 18 Herzberg’s Theory of dob Satisfaction. According to Herzberg, the needs that arise out of the mental processes, are growth needs. He further argued that the satisfaction of physical needs bring about a tension reduction, whereas the satisfaction of the growth needs pleasure. This theory, sometimes called the two-factor theory, maintains that hygiene factors either fulfill or frustrate human physical needs and motivators serve to fulfill or frustrate growth needs. Herzberg (1966) studied zoo engineers and accountants who were asked to describe the times when they were satisfied and when they were not. His sample identified satisfaction as centering around work, promotion, recognition and responsibility. Herzberg described these sources of satisfaction as motivators. The incidents of dissatisfaction were labeled by Herzberg as hygiene, and identified by the sample as such were supervision, interper- sonal working conditions, company policies and salary. In other words, sources of satisfaction, or motivators, are job content related dimensions, while sources of dissatisfaction, or hygiene factors, are job context related dimensions. Herzberg came to the conclusion that job satisfaction depends on motivators and dissatisfaction on hygiene. Furthermore, Herzberg assumed that humans share the same physical needs as animals, but, in addition, humans have a mind that make them different. Humans can think, make abstractions, integrate ideas into logical 19 systems, be creative, and develop a unique personality and individuality, and, above all, could be beautifully ambiguous. Indeed, these assumptions of Herzberg make self-actualization better understood, as the individual's mind accounts for his creativity and unique individualized world view. Locke’s Comprehensive Definition of dob Satisfaction Herzberg has been critizied for an over-emphasis of the body--mind dichotomy. Experimentally, it cannot be demonstrated that the physical and growth needs act the way Herzberg says they do, i.e., in a manner of total mutual exclusiveness. According to Robinson (1969), the intrinsic factors of achievement, responsibility, and recognition proved to be a more important source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, than extrinsic factors (such as working conditions, security, organizational policies, and the like). Locke (1973) found that events like task activity, degree of work smoothness, success or failure, promotion or demotion, responsibility, verbal recognition, money, interpersonal atmosphere, physical working conditions and union elections, etc., could either act as a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, depending upon how the person involved responded to them. These conditions, in turn, were acted upon by such satisfying and dissatisfying agents as the self, supervisors, co-workers, subordinates, the orga- 20 nization, customers, nature, machinery, weather, neighborhood, equipment, God. And, one's luck acted upon the events to produce either satisfaction or its opposite, dissatisfaction. Finally, Locke produces a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as follows: Job satisfaction results from the appraisal of one's job as attaining or allowing the attainment of one's important job values, providing these values are congruent with or help to fulfill one's basic needs. These needs are of two seperable but interdependent types: bodily or physical needs and psychological needs, especially the need for growth. Growth is made possible mainly by the nature of the work itself (Locke, 1976, p. 1319). Opponent Theory Two years after Locke's comprehensive analysis of job satisfaction, Landy (1978) published an article in the Journal of Applied Psychology entitled "An Opponent Process Theory of Job Satisfaction." The Opponent Theory is behavioristic in its essence. It proposes that once a stimulus is perceived by an individual, a sensation of excitement is experienced by the recipient. This stage is referred to as the primary or hedonic stage. In other words, the stimulus is received primarily in its possibility for pleasure or pain for the recipient. In the second stage, the excitement is brought under control by "an opposing inhibitory process commencing to bring excitation within normal or acceptable levels" (Landy, 1978, p. 536), and finally, in the third stage, "when external stimulation disappears, the 21 primary process ceases, and shortly thereafter, the opponent process decays as well" (ibid.). The implications of this theory are that such external stimuli as pay raises, promotion, improvement in working conditions create excitement in the recipient, as they have very specific implications for him/her, but soon an opposing process sets in to inhibit the excitation and a rational evaluation results. It is the result of this rational, intelligent evaluation that is the real source of job satisfaction. In this implication, the opponent theory comes close to Herzberg's growth satisfaction theory. The problem with the theory is that it is too mechanistic. Human beings are treated as programmed robots. As Landy points out, since humans have the well-developed capacity to abstract, form concepts and deal with the real world symbolically, one cannot easily control or even measure, temporal stimulus properties (1978, p. 545). Studies Applying Theories of dob Satisfaction One of the earliest studies was by Kornhauser and Sharp (1932), who found no significant relation between satisfaction and performance, Katz and Heyman (1947) did find that morale and job satisfaction were highly correlated to productivity in U.S. shipyards during World War II. Several authors (Ash, 1954; Mitzner and Mann, 1953; Weitz and 22 Nichols, 1953) conclude that job satisfaction is related to certain acpects of productivity, and higher morale leads to increased productivity. Herzberg et al. (1957) cite some fourteen studies demonstrating a positive relationship between morale and productivity, nine showing no relationship, and three indicating an inverse relationship. However, Super (1939) and Herzberg et al. (1957) indicate that there is a significant relationship between occupational level and job satisfaction. The higher the occupational level, the greater the workers' satisfaction with their job. This result supports the view that morale increases as the workers take on additional responsibilities and authority. Saunders (1956) and Ghiselli (1960) attempted to relate satisfaction and performance through moderators. Satisfaction and performance are sometimes considered joint independent variables, and by others as dependent variables related to some third variable such as ability, self-esteem, work adjustment, and motivational type. Vroom (1964) examines work and motive in his study by the same name. He defines motivation as a process governing choices made by persons or lower organisms among alternative forms of voluntary activity. Vroom uses a statistical approach to arrive 23 at the conclusion that people's reports of their satisfaction with their jobs are, in fact, directly related to the extent to which their jobs provide them with such rewarding outcomes as pay, variety in stimulation, consideration from their supervisor, a high probability of promotion, close interaction with co-workers, and an opportunity to influence decisions which have future effects on them, and control over their pace of work. (1964, p. 174). Furthermore, Vroom examined the motivational bases of work, and identifies five dimension: (1) financial remuneration, (2) expenditure of energy, (3) production of goods and services, (4) social interaction, and (5) the social status of the worker. Vroom concludes that these dimensions are so inextricably intertwined that it is difficult to isolate them or examine them separately. The social, economic and political environments very well may have a profound effect on these dimensions as indicators of job satisfaction. In economically hard times, remuneration may be a leading factor, but in a different socio—economic circumstance, remuneration may play but a secondary or even tertiary role. One of the more interesting conclusions of the study by Vroom (1964) suggests that job satisfaction must be assumed to be the result of the operation of both situational and personality variables. It is only through simultaneous study of these two sets of factors that the complex nature of their interactions may be revealed (p. 173). In a study dealing with job satisfaction and performance, Vroom concludes that 24 the performance of workers varies with conditions that appear to be motivational in nature but are not obviously related to the responses of either the formal or the informal organization to different levels of performance. This suggests that performance may be an end as well as a means to the attainment of an end (1964, p. 266-7). Furthermore, the author added that among the most relevant findings are the following: (1) level of performance varies directly with the strength of the individual's need for achievement, particularly when the task is represented as difficult and challenging; (2) workers paid on an hourly basis perform at a higher level if they are led to believe that they are 'overcompensated' for their job; (3) individuals perform at a higher level if they are led to believe that the task requires abilities which they value or believe themselves to possess; (4) workers who have overlearned a task preform at a higher level when they are given feedback concerning their level of performance; and (5) persons who are given an opportunity to participate in making decisions which have future effects on them perform at a higher level than those who are not given such an opportunity (1964, p. 267). Fournet et al. (1966) concluded that the chareacteristics of both the individual and job appeared to be related to job satisfaction, but that they were intercorre- lated to such an extent that it was extremely difficult to isolate them for investigation. It was also difficult to understand how these factors were related to such behavior as performance, absenteeism, and turnover (Fournet, et al, 1966, p. 180). Porter and Lawler (1968) studied the relationship between job satisfaction and performance and concluded that performance leads to satisfaction. Their model states "good performance may lead to rewards, which in turn lead to satisfaction" (p. 23). Siegel 25 and Bowan (1971) found strong support for Porter and Lawler's model, but little or no support for satisfaction leading to performance. In a survey of 692 adults living in Los Angeles, Carters and Bugental (1966) found that higher status workers cited intrinsic features of the job as the most important in keeping them on their present job and lower status workers noted extrinsic factors. Wanous (1974) conducted a cross-lag study examining the relationship between job satisfaction and performance, but failed to find any significant relation. When seperating intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction, he found some support for performance causing satisfaction (i.e., Porter and Lawler's model), while extrinsic satisfaction appeared to be a possible cause of performance. Schiemm (1975) studied seventy management trainees in a large Japanese manufacturing firm. All were single and of the same race. He tried to find relationships between satisfaction, performance, and several reward types. He found major support for interpersonal reward as a further link between job satisfaction and performance. However, the result failed to support either satisfaction causing performance or vice versa. --‘. 26 Studies of dob Satisfaction in Academic Environments Sergiovanni (1967) reported that achievement, recognition, and responsibility were factors which contributed predominantly to teacher job satisfaction. Interpersonal relations (subordinates), interpersonal relations (peers), supervision--technical, school policy and administration, personal life, and fairness--unfairness were factors which contributed predo- minantly to teacher job dissatisfaction (p. 76). Frankel (1973) has reviewed some of the research done dealing with job satisfaction of junior college faculty. Job satisfaction was assumed to be important not only for humanitarian reasons, but even more so, because a satisfied faculty would create a better learning environment for students. Discussing attitude toward work, Bisconti and Solman (1977) concluded that teachers, more than others, feel underpaid, especially compared with those in different jobs or different settings. Their study was based on the examination of job status, interaction with supervisors' attitude toward salary, characteristics of the jobs and the attitude of various prx>fessions to these variables. CMHJoha (1980) studied the job satisfaction of university faculty in physical and occupational therapy programs in eleven Canadian 27 universities. Using Herzberg's theory, Onuoha concluded such motivators as 'recognition', 'achievement', or 'content of work' were sources of job satisfaction; while such hygiene factors as 'context of work‘, 'policies and administration', or 'interpersonal relations with peers' were sources of dissatisfaction. The motivator 'responsibility' and the hygiene factor ‘interpersonal relations with students' were responded contrary to what would be expected under Herzberg's two-factor theory. Factors having a Significant Effect on dob Satisfaction The more specific factors which have frequently emerged from some studies are attitudes toward the company and its management (Ash, 1954; Harrison, 1961; Wherry 1954; Wringley, 1958), the content of the job (Baehr, 1959; Kendall, et al., 1963), promotional opportunities (Harrison, 1961; Kendall, et al., 1963), financial rewards (Dobas, 1958; Kahn, 1060; Kendall, et al., 1963; Wherry, 1954), co-workers (Kendall, et al, 1963; Roach, 1958; Wringle, 1958), and supervisors (Baehr, 1954; Kendall, et al., 1963; Roach, 1958). ixfter examining a number of studies of job satisfaction, Vroom concluded that 28 A work role most conducive to job satisfaction appears to be one which provides high pay, substantial promotional opportunities, considerate and participative supervision, an opportunity to interact with one's peers, varied duties, and a high degree of control over work methods and work pace (1964, p. 172-3). The following factors have been found in research to have a significant effect on job satisfaction: remuneration, promotional opportunities, supervision, group effects and job content. In the following, research related to each of these areas will be considered. Remunerat i on Higher wage levels are frequently associated with factors such as experience, job level, productivity, etc., which may also have an effect on satisfaction. However, when workers are asked to rank different aspects of the work role in terms of their importance, wages tend to be rated as less important than security, opportunity for advancement, and company and management, but as more important than job content, supervision, working conditions and benefits (Herzberg, et al., 1957). Patchen (1961) formulated the problem of satisfaction with wages in terms of social comparison theory. He assumed that individuals compare their own earnings with those of others and 29 evaluate differences or similarities in terms of their relative standing on dimensions believed to be the basis of pay (e.g., skill, seniority, and education). Or, as Vroom suggested ...if one person compared himself with another person who was earning more but who was similar in his standing on dimensions related to pay, the comparison would be dissonant and would be expected to lead to dissatisfaction on the part of the comparer. Similarly, if he compared himself to someone who was earning the same but who was inferior in standing on dimensions related to pay, the comparison would also be objectively dissonant and accom- panied by dissatisfaction (1964, p. 151). The greater the similarity between the occupational level of the person earning more, the less the reported satisfaction with the comparison. Promotional Opportunities Morse (1953) studied an electric utility company and found that a positive relationship existed between individuals' statements regarding their promotional opportunities and their satisfaction with those promotional opportunities. March and Simon (1958) hypothesized that organizations in which promotion is contingent on performance will be more productive than those that promote on the basis of family relationship, internal politics, or old school ties. 30 Superv is i on Vroom (1964) cites a study by Baumgartel which indicated that scientists under directive leadership have less positive attitudes toward their director than those operating under participative styles. Robinson added Without attempting to duplicate Vroom‘s [1964] extensive review of the literature regarding supervision and satisfaction, it is probably reasonable to say that the type‘ of supervision which will produce the most satisfaction in a given group of workers is one which is keyed to the nature of the job, the needs and personalities of the workers, and the personalities of the managers. To say that participative management or high consideration management or democratic supervision is always best extends conclusions far beyond available data (1969, p. 86-7). Group decisions, democratic leadership, and participative supervision are important in human relations, and refer to supervisory styles which permit subordinates a substantial degree of influence on decisions which affect them. It is obvious that the satisfaction of subordinates is positively associated with the degree to which they are permitted an opportunity to participate in making decisions (Vroom, 1967). 1. 31 Group Effects This involves interaction, cohesion and goals. Interaction depends on group size. Several studies found that large work groups frequently have lower morale and cohesion than small groups (Katzell, 1955; Worthy, 1950). Satisfaction is related to the opportunities for interaction with others on the job. Walker and Guesty (1952) stated that "isolated workers disliked their job and gave social isolation as the principal reason" (p. 76). Bellows expressed his view of the importance of acceptance as follows: The manner in which a new employee is accepted by and adjusts to his fellow workers may determine to a large extent his satisfaction with his job, his attitude toward his job, employer, boss and the the firm, his amount of production and quality of work, ... and even the length of time he remains with the company (1949, p. 288). dob Content Chase (1962) summarizes the results of a survey in a Connecticut automobile assembly plant: ill... . I... I. .1 is» Ill . 32 The survey showed, too, that the men hated being paced by a machine rather than by their own working rythm. ... Many said that they were bored to the limit of their endurance. 'The job is so sickening, day in and day out plugging in ignition wires. I get through one motor, turn around, and there's another motor staring me in the face.‘ ... The men said they had no chance to develop personal skills, and this made them feel stupid and inferior (apud Robinson, 1969, p. 87). Job level is one of the most frequently studied topic related to job satisfaction. A positive relationship between the level or status of the worker's job and his job satisfaction has been reported by several rsearchers (Heron, 1948; Kornhauser, 1969; Morse, 1953; Super, 1939; and Uhorbork, 1934). This is due to the fact that positive relationships at high levels provide more reward to their occupants than those at lower levels. Other factors such as skills and abilities relate to the job content. An individual derives satisfaction from a job which permits him to use his skills and abilities. For example, Maslow stated, A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization (1943, p. 382). Vroom (1962) in this connection has reported a correlation of r = .54 between the "opportunity for self-expression in the job and job satisfaction for 489 hourly blue-collar workers in a Canadian oil refinery" (p. 143). a 33 Instruments for the Determination of dob Satisfaction A variety of scales have been used to assess job satisfaction. The sub-scales on these scales generally overlap, but the number and the nature of items on these sub—scales vary considerably. At Saudi campuses, the staff members in general, and the Saudis in particular, are extremely busy. In view of their busy schedule and in view of the fact that they are not used to participating in social science research studies, an effort was made to find a scale which would be easy to follow and quick to respond to. A scale developed by Smith et al. in 1965, called the dob Description Index (JDI) was found to be most suitable for this purpose. dob Description Index According to Smith et al. (1969, p. 6), job satisfaction .represents the difference between "what is expected and what is experienced, in relation to alternatives available in a given situation." The Job Description Index is intended to measure the effective responses to 'this difference by measuring feelings associated with different facets of the job situation. The JDI has been described as the most carefully developed scale to date (Vroom, 1964). The scale has five sub-scales, dealing with the 34 following aspects of the job situation: 1. colleagues 2. promotion 3. remuneration 4. supervisor 5. work itself and meets the following criteria, established by Vaugh et al. (1972) for a useful scale. Namely, it should: 1. index the several dimensions of job satisfaction, rather than provide only a global dimension; 2. be applicable to a wide variety of jobs; 3. be sensitive to variations in attitude; 4. be of such a nature (i.e., interesting, realistic, and varied) as to evoke cooperation from both management and employees; 5. be reliable; 6. be valid; 7. be brief and easily scoreable; 8. provide normative data. Reliability of the dob Description Index. Corrected split—half internal consistency coefficients are reported to exceed .80 for each of the sub-scales. Some evidence for stability over time is reported by Hulin (1966). 35 Validity of the dob Description Index. Schneider and Dachler (1978) report on the 16-month stability of the Job Description Index, based on two administrations of the measure to a diverse sample of utility employees. Using the Campbell and Fiske multi- trait-multimethod approach, they found good stability coefficients (r ~ .57), and noted, furthermore, that the five JDI subscales maintained relative independence over time. Hulin (1966) reports a correlation of r = -.27 between satisfaction and turnover for female clerical employees. Other studies involving convergent and discriminant validity have been reported by Smith et al. (1969). However, even at this level of stability, it is clear that at least for this sample, the JDI, relative to other criteria, is quite stable and should prove useful in time-based studies. Schmidt and Hunter (1977) report an average expected re-test reliability for criteria in personnel selection studies of r = .60. Summary Job satisfaction theories have travelled a long and circuitous path. The earliest theories, like those of Taylor, placed an excessive reliance on the attitude of the worker. Taylor and his followers maintained that you had to have the right attitude to derive job satisfaction from work, but psychological study looked deeper into the human psyche to understand its needs. Attitudes 36 toward job satisfaction began to change, and scholars, especially Locke, have pointed out that job satisfaction isia function of a variety of personality and psychological traits. In assembling a large amount of data for these psychological and personality needs, job satisfaction studies have depended almost exclusively on Maslow and Herzberg, who provided investigators with theoretical insights into human behavior. For some time, behaviorists had the field. Investigators subscribed to the view that the individual could be conditioned to efficiency. Repetition and mechanical work were believed to act as reinforcers, but results were not consistent with the theory. Human beings have a mind, which craves for self—ex- pression, growth in addition to the satisfaction of his basic physiological needs, and a job which does not provide opportunities for growth and self-expression needs will provide no job satisfaction. Today's task planners look more to harmonizing the basic and higher needs of workers than providing workers with tasks that are repetitive and require no initiative and ingenuity. The purpose satisfaction Makkah, Saudi Arabia, of of Chapter III DESIGN OF THE STUDY this the study Introduction was to examine the overall job staff members of Umm Al-Oura University in in order that necessary steps may be recom- mended to remove the hurdles which create job dissatisfaction; as well as to variables the following six study: It shou1d be noted that the JDI originally consists of with job satisfaction. general general general general general general examine the dependent attitude attitude attitude attitude attitude attitude relationship of selected demographic The dob Description Index with variables was considered in the toward work; toward the supervisor; toward colleagues; toward remuneration; toward promotion; toward students. only the first five subscales; the sixth, dealing with students, was added for the purpose of the present research, and duplicates the list 37 38 used for colleagues. Furthermore, open-ended questions about these topics were considered. Demographic variables, as listed in the description of the instrument below (page 44), were considered as independent variables. Subjects For the purpose of this study, two groups of subjects were considered: 1. Academic staff, i.e., associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, and assistant teachers; 2. Administrative staff with at least completed high school education. The academic staff was selected from the following colleges and departments: 1. College of Education 1. Department of Curriculum; 2. Department of Education; 3. English. 2. College of Islamic Law 1. Research; 2. Arabic; 3. Shariah, i.e., Islamic Law. In these departments, all Saudi faculty members received 39 questionnaires. in addition, from among the expatriate faculty [1], a random selection was made in such a manner as to arrive at a total of fifteen respondents in each deparment. From among the administrative staff, twenty Saudi and twenty expatriate respondents were randomly selected from the central administration of the university. Table 1 presents an overview of the distribution of the respondents. Instrument One questionnaire was used, consisting of eight parts, addressing the following question [2]: 1. Personal Information: place and time of birth, marital status, size of family and number of children; 2. Education: highschool, undergraduate and graduate education, asking in each case for year completed as well as country; 3. Current dbb Situation: college, department, position, time at the university and time in current position; 4. Previous Positions: where, how long and what kind of [1] It should be noted that Islamic law allows only Moslems to set foot in Makkah, thus all expatriate faculty and staff at Umm Al-Qura University are Moslems, mostly from Egypt and Pakistan. [2] See Appendix A (p 112) for the Arabic version of the I 5.11:3...1I I360. 3L____,>.J|¢YL?..J LuLLJI rJJsJI LUJVI—FLJI Key) €312.” 2303394.;- 613303 guess I'IJI: )1 (3.33.. Hind)“ Y . 1.53:3..3I Q_._,=._‘._<.3L... usuomwu WI cum OI 03.1.; .. L,_‘.I_,$-I 'a.__._._'.3...JI Lwl olfl3 1.94.3.1. V5.) LL35...” IEWI (54' r'-l~:-hyI_, LILJJJI r__,,._L-:..JI va-JhJI Jstsol If.“ JoaL. wouLJuI YJWI 2J5), c. I.J3_3.JI 0... ISACLBI L.) ..LII -I..: OI {31.3w osJJaongsbydaJI rt...“ ...;L_,.,.3...Je-.I_‘._,I._>.__.I Q. ....i (Edy CL._.__b..i.Jl_,. LLoLaJl MIQLJLBJL, $31.1. "..IJSJGSCIJSQI I.._,_, L;__....-13;I_, WJWWI QEWI as.» ”L... L115 ”)st L,...,_<.3.3I ”SM 9.: .33I A_,>L_'.u.. LuLSJI WP quLfglu, 643th” ()ny QI 0.9.2:“) _;.. elf—Li 3.» 930,513., .. Legs}; Us.“ WJJI ,JI...:YI 0.: "LL22, HyIlé‘HIwLQQIfy—‘I WI;L¢_,.L9JI-I LAMI @JJJ-Y wolSYng-Jl_\‘ a...3I_.L~._-.YI eIJuluYI _ A . U39.“ N‘DI 834‘ ._ :- 9.2.st ‘LafLJ rLaJI #45:..." _. q “ALL...” oL.3.'>.JI -2 J_H3L, 3.13,.3I stm L.,IJ...“ _ o 34 an); (.51..ng UsoU¢L12LYI I81... rSP-‘I-r-J rain 3| 933i) e—>—..-H .9 L.—-- ans-.4 3133. LL?” 63$: 6» '4»? Leer-50* 15133:) ‘34-. 35:» OI can, Ia» UJ33I gJWLDI ”3w V3315.» LIL-Us... ,_~,I XJI .5;le L,__'._'.LJ I33 as)...“ Q. Lia.“ 6’3"?“ WM ,_,;.3I c.L.._,..L-..JI 0L... r53 ~..... oLH-Z-Y‘ I." H.254: rS-“I 8.: f“ .23: aa- fi—_S.:...L..>.;..IVL:LJJ.J5__:.JI Jgf rS—IJ M A__..I._II_L,..5 0H /¢._>L,.JI ( )CJP‘I JMI “II—5.4 I JMI 3;...” )93—5I QWYI ULJJI “fix—...: M.,—g: WJJI ‘fLSJYI $.15 wI 11.. J1 iIaYI 33.: “L... LLWIJILJMI «gum 'L___..,_.I_’L.JI 3._I.>J..LJI d.__L.I:.aL.>.JI Lia)...” L._,..._L:LJI QDIJJJI : u-JL-x-II Isa—19‘..';JI 83-“ (I L“,_JI...>...II Nyl also) JSJI 31.6.6 : but? : .. :LLJDJJI \ététété AAAA AAAA vvvv l. l. l. l. I "xii—(J ;J__.33L, 3124)..“ LJWYI (...,in (o ‘3 Jul J41...» J3); J3: S‘ 05...“... 18.13.)...“ RLJLLJI DWI 3):... .J.» ? A "43%... WI Chg-MI “l-b ? A "A 4}; 91—91—34: L'JI—--——:--R LJ'“ :6» e; gI afYI L,I_;,..3I JSSI 333 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......0.0......OOOOQOO0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....O..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOOO O00.00.0.0.0.0.....000...OO.............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......O L.__~>(6JJ\Y)JI(Y) .’(‘._n_-.)IL..>L( )BJLzlcaM :L.~__'LIJJl 6JJ\Y r.” ’JJ' “4‘ 4...." ~- - .a‘l AJ‘ .' u.” _ 0 _ JGJ—fiu‘ MLJfl— 0‘ gr” L} ...” UJL‘W"H_ '6 .J— 'Jdk ‘ J.)— o-L la..- L o .11..” . f—J—J _ o 6“] ll \ ‘L __ o A [An .A _ 117 O‘JJI ‘J z: - .1 J - Jn 1 ./. o/o GJJI Y . .. J.)— . ,.__—_..A_ o h—___§L.L_ A-yLL'La-Yi ..an ./. wdSJWlL'fiJJI Luv.» L..._K . 21.,me ..1__,_J_,_‘.....J| J43.” LanLAJQAM old-$5..“ . o UA—L‘LHW‘ ~/¢ QJ‘JY‘Qwfia-AJ| / coon... 000.... .000... 0001.9. 0...... 000.0‘0 u._—_._..__.,.,..\:._H _; J51 J... 1H- qu J10. www ..wa (A _; 1....qu\ Lu. 9.5 M ct...» Us.” .J..1_,_-_JI J53! 3...; _ i ‘OOOODOOQOOOCOOOOOOOQOoIt.0.0009000OOOOOOOO'OOOOOOOQOOOOO 00000.00.00000009000000OOOO'OOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... O...000‘00.0.0000.0000......00.0.0000.000QOQOOOOOOOOOOOOQ 000000.009.........OOOOOO0.0.0.0.00000000000000000QO'OOOO OOO...0.000.0.00‘OQOOOCQOOOO'00.000.00.00000000000000..6. 000'I.00000'OCOOOOOGOOQOOOOOOOOOQOO00600000000000.0000... 119 a: ‘3‘.an co U.S.» oo ( fan. ) cJ.’.'.__.L:-l 0L5 ‘bl ...0.0.......00..........OOOOOOOOOO’OOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0.0.0........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000... 0.0.0.0....0.0.0.000.........OOOOOOOOOOO O.....OO....O..0000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .....OOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO €13L__...J_a.(9)..wgl.>l¢._-.Lsm l!‘ .1qu O O O tool‘s: flLLaL’ IJSL______.: c-‘Lo/c APPENDIX B English Translation of the Questionnaire Used Cover Letter In the Name of God the Most Merciful and the Most Beneficial Dear Faculty Members and Administrators: The current aura of opportunities, in an academic institution, undoubtably serve as a potent tool to expand one's understanding and knowledge for the main purpose of building communication bridges and mutual understanding channels of continuous cooperation and support for the sole purpose of enabling the young generation fulfill its expectations and enhance their talents and capacities in the hope of a better life. This perception bestows upon me a feeling of pride and determination; as one among a constellation of experienced leaders and ambitious followers who have devoted their time and energy in the pursuit of human knowledge---a statement of cognizance rather than praise and evaluation. It is not a new knowledge to you that the education sector has acquired a significant attention in the plans and programs of the various governmental departments and ministries, particularly the Ministry of Planning and the Civil Service Agency. A later manifestation of concern is the passage and adoption of the new pay-scale, which should come into full effect during the coming month of Rajob. Almost all studies and research endeavors related to the working units of the various departments of the governmental sector should have an impact. This expected outcome should be of value to those units when re-evaluation and further planning become a 121 122 concommittant stage in the effort to enhance efficiency. The enclosed questionnaire is of particular interest to faculty members and administrators. Its focal point is an effort to discover their situation and their job satisfaction. The questionnaire consists of the following parts: 1. Personal Information; 2. Educational Background; 3. Current Employment Situation; 4. Previous Employment Situation; 5. Economic Benefits Related with the Job; 6. Job Description Index; 7. Division of Responsability; 8. Mobility Considerations; 9. Overall Job Satisfaction. Kindly read the questionnaire carefully; forward any additional explanatory comments; and feel free to include any additional information. Stating your name is not necessary; your answers will be kept confidential. Signed H. A. Ageel 1. Personal Profile 1. Year of Birth 2. Place of Birth 3. Marital Status: Single [ ] Married [ ] 4. Number of Dependents 5. Number of Children 123 2. Academic Record Indicate for High School, Undergraduate and Graduate: Degree School Year of Graduation City Country 3. Current dob Situation Please describe your current job situation: 1. University Deparment Position How many years have you worked at the university How many years have you worked in you current position 4. Previous Positions Prior to your present position, where have you worked since your graduation? Indicate for each position: 1. 2. 3. Position Employer Number of Years 124 5. Economic Benefits Related with the don Availability of Transportation: Yes [ ] No [ ] Subsidized Housing: Yes [ ] No [ ] Free Medical Services: Yes [ ] No [ ] Rewards Related to Performance: Yes [ ] No [ ] Other 6. Job Description Index Please place a Y (yes), N (no), or ? (don't know) next to each of the words or phrases: My Pay Income adequate for normal expenses Barely live on income Income provides luxuries Insecure Less than I deserve Highly paid Underpaid My Promotional Possibilities Good opportunities for advancement Opportunities somewhat limited Promotion on ability Unfair promotion policy 125 Infrequent promotions Regular promotions Fairly good chance for promotion Good chance for promotion My Supervisor 15. 16. 17. Asks my advice Hard to please Impolite Praises good work Tactful Influential Up-to-date Quick tempered Tells me where I stand Annoying Stubborn Knows job well Bad Intelligent Leaves me on my own Around when needed Lazy 126 The People I Work with l. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. Stimulating Boring Slow Ambitious Stupid Responsible Fast Intelligent Easy to make enemies Talk too much Smart Lazy Unpleasant No privacy Active Narrow interests Loyal Hard to meet The Students I Work With (for faculty only) 1. 2. 3. Stimulating Boring Slow —. 127 4. Ambitious 5. Stupid 6. Responsible 7. Fast 8. Intelligent 9. Easy to make enemies 10. Talk too much 11. Smart 12. Lazy 13. Unpleasant 14. No privacy 15. Active 16. Narrow interests 17. Loyal 18. Hard to meet My Work is l. Fascinating 2. Routine 3. Satisfying 4. Boring 5. Good 6. Creative 7. Respected 8. Pleasant 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 128 Useful Tiresome Healthful Challenging On your feet Frustrating Simple Endless Gives sense of accomplishment 7. Division of Responsibility What percentage of your assigned work time do you on: 1. Administration 2. Teaching 3. Research 4. Extension/Public Service If you were to be completely satisfied with your spend work responsibilities, what percentage of your time would you devote to: 1. Administration 2. Teaching 3. Research 4. Extension/Public Service 129 8. Mobility Considerations Please list the factors that attracted you to take on employment at this particular institution Do you have any intentions to take on employment with other organizations: 1. If yes, please specify when and why: 2. If no, please explain why not: 9. Overall dob Satisfaction List the factors that give you most job satisfaction, e.g., I like and respect my supervisor. List the factors which cause you greatest job dissa- tisfaction, e.g., I don't like or respect my supervisor. Thank you for your care and cooperation APPENDIX C Attestation of Validity of Translation 130 E.”- mute-433553921 131 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA WY OF HIGHER EDUCAC‘I'ION QJMQLJIJI dbl‘g-CJMQDJ INN BB‘QHILB smmsmr MAKKAB ALIUMAMAI FACULTY or EDUCATION -.<" ’ - "—3.5 2; H‘s-1f" 'oé Educational 6: Psychological Research Center (treatment:- 3'9 Wu? «'SE‘iflflaTmE‘: ' r‘)" an 6.9qu DATE 551,11 915,52.“ T0 WHOM IT géY CONCERN This is to certify that the questionnaire developed in English language (copy enclosed) concerning the job satisfaction of university staff in Saudi Arabia, was translated and reviewed by several staff members of the College of Education of Umm Al- Qura University into Arabic language. These staff members had; good command over English language, Arabic language, and had teaching experience at this College of Education. They expressed Ehat the translation of the English version of the questionnaire into Arabic language was appropriate for the purpose of the re- search by Mr. HAMZA ABDULLAH AGEEL. ”Jaw Dr. Zaid Al-Husain, Director, Educational 5 Psychological Research Center, Faculty of Education, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. 1.0 )0: 8711 ('VU‘NVV )-J‘J’-'-- YVH a”, 5,3. murmurm AL-ausa m Open," . 02_55“m as. “,3” ,1 ant, L5,, mxumuamnu ZuLpJ—l, It“i‘u‘.)‘u"n 132 Appendix D-l MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Saudi and Expatriate Respondents Professors Only CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV N PAYMENT Saudi Arabia 1.29286 .66216 40 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.32707 .68705 38 For Entire Sample 1.30952 .67022 78 SUPERVISOR Saudi Arabia 1.83235 .53542 40 Outside Saudi Arabia 2.02941 .70120 38 For Entire Sample 1.92836 .62553 78 COLLEAGUES , Saudi Arabia 1.81250 .62217 40 Outside Saudi Arabia 2.10965 .69874 38 For Entire Sample 1.95726 .67306 78 WORK Saudi Arabia 1.52353 .64696 40 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.56502 .74551 38 For Entire Sample 1.54374 .69246 78 STUDENTS Saudi Arabia 1.60139 .59688 40 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.81579 .56303 38 For Entire Sample 1.70584 .58686 78 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,76) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PAYM .02281 .45481 .05015 .82341 SUPR ‘ .75673 .38648 1.95802 .16579 COLL 1.72067 .43634 3.94345 .05066 WORK .03354 .48537 .06910 .79336 STUD .89578 .33715 2.65691 .10724 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (5,380) D. F. (AVER.) .68591 .42003 1.63299 .15026 133 Appendix D-2 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Saudi and Expatriate Respondents All Respondents CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV N PAYMENT Saudi Arabia 1.26339 .63899 64 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.30549 .73622 65 For Entire Sample 1.28461 .68733 129 SUPERVISOR Saudi Arabia 1.93566 .60850 64 Outside Saudi Arabia 2.09683 .64012 65 For Entire Sample 2.01687 .62743 129 COLLEAGUES Saudi Arabia 1.85503 .67074 64 Outside Saudi Arabia 2.10855 .69842 65 For Entire Sample 1.98277 .69392 129 WORK Saudi Arabia 1.62408 .66142 64 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.74299 '.70162 65 For Entire Sample 1.68399 .68193 129 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,127) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PAYM .05716 .47569 .12017 - .72943 SUPR .83768 .39017 2.14697 .14532 COLL 2.07253 .46899 4.41912 .03751 WORK .45594 .46509 .98032 .32400 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (4,508) D. F. (AVER.) .85583 .44998 1.90190 .10883 134 Appendix D-3 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Saudi and Foreign-Trained Respondents Saudi Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV N PROMOTION Saudi Arabia 1.21591 .58654 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.38333 .64321 30 For Entire Sample 1.33841 .62578 41 PAYMENT Saudi Arabia 1.11688 .69640 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.32857 .65963 30 For Entire Sample 1.27178 .66762 41 SUPERVISOR Saudi Arabia 1.88235 .49004 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.83137 .55778 30 For Entire Sample 1.84505 .53490 41 COLLEAGUES Saudi Arabia 1.95960 .41208 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.78704 .69160 30 For Entire Sample 1.83333 .62866 41 WORK Saudi Arabia 1.51872 .74908 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.56275 .64135 30 For Entire Sample 1.55093 .66248 41 STUDENTS Saudi Arabia 1.63131 .57482 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.60370 .60853 30 For Entire Sample 1.61111 .59265 41 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,39) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR . F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PROM .22561 .39585 .56995 .45482 PAYM .36068 .44790 .80527 .37503 SUPR .02092 .29292 .07142 .79069 COLL .23967 .39920 .60036 .44311 WORK .01560 .44974 .03469 .85321 STUD .00614 .36008 .01704 .89682 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (6,234) D. F. (AVER.) .14477 I .39095 .37030 .89736 135 Appendix D-4 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Saudi and Foreign-Trained Respondents All Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV N PAYMENT Saudi Arabia 1.11688 .69640 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.34848 .66824 66 For Entire Sample 1.31540 .67259 77 SUPERVISOR Saudi Arabia 1.88235 .49004 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.92246 .64332 66 For Entire Sample 1.91673 .62109 77 COLLEAGUE Saudi Arabia 1.95960 .41208 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.94360 .70606 66 For Entire Sample 1.94589 .66989 - 77 WORK Saudi Arabia 1.51872 .74908 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.53922 .69029 66 For Entire Sample 1.53629 .69385 77 STUDENTS Saudi Arabia 1.63131 .57482 11 Outside Saudi Arabia 1.72138 .59609 66 For Entire Sample 1.70851 .59023 77 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,75) D. F. . HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PAYM .50574 .45167 1.11971 .29338 SUPR .01517 .39070 .03882 .84434 COLL .00241 .45470 .00530 .94214 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (5,375) D. F. (AVER.) .12075 .42737 .28255 .92258 136 Appendix D-S MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Faculty and Administrators Saudi Respondents CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR PAYMENT Faculty Administrators For Entire Sample SUPERVISOR Faculty Administrators For Entire Sample COLLEAGUES Faculty Administrators For Entire Sample WORK Faculty Administrators For Entire Sample PROMOTION Faculty Administrators For Entire Sample MEAN 1.33131 1.05000 1.24733 1.91615 2.09118 1.96839 1.86525 1.89444 1.87396 1.63079 1.73529 1.66198 1.36702 .98750 1.25373 STD DEV .66481 .52083 .63479 .54685 .75463 .61553 .61796 .81528 .67653 .66276 .70498 .67197 .61093 .68092 .65133 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,65) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ PROM 2.02081 .39967 5.05625 PAYM 1.11023 .39208 2.83168 SUPR .42982 .37809 1.13681 COLL .01196 .46454 .02574 WORK .15323 .45613 .33593 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (5,325) D. F. (AVER.) .74521 .41810 1.78236 N 47 20 67 47 20 67 47 20 67 47 20 67 47 20 67 SIGNIF OF F .02793 .09722 .29027 .87302 .56419 .11594 137 Appendix D-6 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Faculty of Education and Law Saudi Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV N PROMOTION Education 1.33152 .67168 23 Law 1.35526 .56560 19 For Entire Sample 1.34226 .61860 42 PAYMENT Education 1.25466 .57782 23 Law 1.27068 .76915 19 For Entire Sample 1.26190 .66253 42 SUPERVISOR Education 1.84655 .55458 23 Law 1.89474 .55721 19 For Entire Sample 1.86835 .54949 42 COLLEAGUES Education 1.93478 .61172 23 Law 1.76316 .67684 19 For Entire Sample 1.85714 .63983 42 WORK Education 1.51151 .66254 23 Law 1.62848 .66956 19 For Entire Sample 1.56443 .6601? 42 STUDENTS Education 1.49275 .63593 23 Law 1.74854 .49910 19 For Entire Sample 1.60847 .58563 42 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,40) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PROM .00586 .39209 .01496 .90327 PAYM .00267 .44985 .00593 .93898 SUPR .02416 .30888 .07823 .78116 COLL .30647 .41196 .74934 .39354 WORK .14237 .44316 .32125 .57402 STUD .68074 .33452 2.03499 .16147 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (6,240) D. F. (AVER.) .19371 .39008 .49660 .81062 Appendix D-7 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction and Academic Rank Saudi Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV PROMOTION Assistant Teacher 1.12500 .48412 Lecturer .89286 .63504 Assistant Professor 1.43382 .64517 Associate Professor 1.62500 .49371 For Entire Sample 1.34226 .61860 PAYMENT Assistant Teacher .91837 .63276 Lecturer 1.08163 .64869 Assistant Professor 1.31092 .59168 Associate Professor 1.51948 .75125 For Entire Sample 1.26190 .66253 SUPERVISOR Assistant Teacher 1.79832 .49665 Lecturer 1.78151 .75462 Assistant Professor 1.94118 .47562 Associate Professor 1.85561 .60697 For Entire Sample 1.86835 .54949 COLLEAGUES Assistant Teacher 2.00794 .38010 Lecturer 1.81746 .57888 Assistant Professor 1.89216 .62930 Associate Professor 1.73232 .84904 For Entire Sample 1.85714 .63983 WORK Assistant Teacher 1.34454 .70132 Lecturer 1.52941 .95154 Assistant Professor 1.53979 .58352 Associate Professor 1.76471 .56910 For Entire Sample 1.56443 .66017 STUDENTS Assistant Teacher 1.62698 .62089 Lecturer 1.48413 .6108? Assistant Professor 1.49020 .62708 Associate Professor 1.85859 .46704 For Entire Sample 1.60847 .58563 138 17 11 42 17 11 42 17 11 42 17 11 42 17 11 42 17 ll 42 139 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (3,38) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PROM .92201 .34009 2.71111 .05848 PAYM .60809 .42559 1.42882 .24943 SUPR .05969 .32106 .18591 .90533 COLL .12080 .43217 .27953 .83982 WORK .26620 .44922 .59257 .62370 STUD .34552 .34276 1.00807 .39979 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (18,228) D. F. (AVER.) .38705 .38515 1.00495 .45500 Appendix D-8 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction and Academic Rank All Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV PAYMENT Assistant Teacher .91837 .63276 Lecturer 1.12857 .61519 Assistant Professor 1.31250 .58783 Associate Professor 1.46305 .75560 For Entire Sample 1.30952 .67022 SUPERVISOR Assistant Teacher 1.79832 .49665 Lecturer 1.97647 .69280 Assistant Professor 1.88235 .55484 Associate Professor 1.99391 .71844 For Entire Sample 1.92836 .62553 COLLEAGUES Assistant Teacher 2.00794 .38010 Lecturer 1.89444 .50678 Assistant Professor 1.95312 .67026 Associate Professor 1.97126 .79538 For Entire Sample 1.95726 .67306 WORK . Assistant Teacher 1.34454 .70132 Lecturer 1.47647 .83441 Assistant Professor 1.54412 .62593 Associate Professor 1.61460 .73413 For Entire Sample 1.54374 .69246 STUDENTS Assistant Teacher 1.62698 .62089 Lecturer 1.63889 .57928 Assistant Professor 1.66493 .61840 Associate Professor 1.79310 .56595 For Entire Sample 1.70584 .58686 140 10 32 29 78 10 32 29 78 10 32 29 78 10 32 29 78 10 32 29 78 141 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (3,74) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR' F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PAYM .69411 .43927 1.58013 .20137 SUPR .11129 .40264 .27641 .84224 COLL .02122 .47052 .04511 .98718 WORK .15622 .49261 .31713 .81295 STUD .12091 .35347 .34208 .79495 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (15,370) D. F. (AVER.) .22075 .43170 .51135 .93435 Appendix D-9 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction and Educational Background Saudi Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV PROMOTION College 1.12500 .48412 Master's .89286 .63504 PhD 1.50893 .58820 For Entire Sample 1.34226 .61860 PAYMENT College .91837 .63276 Master's 1.08163 .64869 PhD 1.39286 .65364 For Entire Sample 1.26190 .66253 SUPERVISOR College 1.79832 .49665 Master's 1.78151 .75462 PhD 1.90756 .52184 For Entire Sample 1.86835 .54949 COLLEAGUES College 2.00794 .38010 Master's 1.81746 .57888 PhD . 1.82937 .71273 For Entire Sample 1.85714 .63983 WORK . College 1.34454 .70132 Master's 1.52941 .95154 PhD 1.62815 .57814 For Entire Sample 1.56443 .66017 STUDENTS College 1.62698 .62089 Master's 1.48413 .61087 PhD 1.63492 .58939 For Entire Sample 1.60847 .58563 142 143 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (2,39) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PROM 1.26097 .33763 3.73483 .03281 PAYM .76689 .42212 1.81673 .17604 SUPR .06508 .31408 .20722 .81373 COLL .09590 .42546 .22540 .79923 WORK .23037 .44636 .51611 .60086 STUD .06511 35721 .18227 .83408 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (12,234) D. F. (AVER.) .41405 .38381 1.07880 .37879 144 Appendix D-10 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction and Educational Background All Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV PAYMENT College .91837 .63276 Master's 1.12857 .61519 PhD 1.38407 .67135 For Entire Sample 1.30952 .67022 SUPERVISOR College 1.79832 .49665 Master's 1.97647 .69280 PhD 1.93539 .63489 For Entire Sample 1.92836 .62553 COLLEAGUES College 2.00794 .38010 Master's 1.89444 .50678 PhD 1.96175 .72624 For Entire Sample 1.95726 .67306 WORK College 1.34454 .70132 Master's 1.47647 .83441 PhD 1.57763 .67468 For Entire Sample 1.54374 .69246 STUDENTS College 1.62698 .62089 Master's 1.63889 .57928 PhD 1.72587 .59264 For Entire Sample 1.70584 .58686 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (2,75) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ PAYM .86875 .43801 1.98338 SUPR .07227 .39979 .18076 COLL .02933 .46431 .06317 WORK .19654 .48705 .40353 STUD .05641 .35209 .16021 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (10,375) D. F. (AVER.) .24466 .42825 .57130 N 7 10 61 78 7 10 61 78 7 10 61 78 7 10 61 78 7 10 61 78 SIGNIF OF F .14476 .83500 .93883 .66940 .85226 .83740 145 Appendix D-ll MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Faculty of Education and Law All Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FACTOR MEAN STD DEV PAYMENT Education 1.33968 .58291 Law 1.26840 .78145 For Entire Sample 1.30952 .67022 SUPERVISOR Education 1.93203 .62831 Law 1.92335 .63141 For Entire Sample 1.92836 .62553 COLLEAGUES Education 2.04568 .64007 Law 1.83670 .70764 For Entire Sample 1.95726 .67306 WORK Education 1.60654 .66182 Law 1.45811 .73379 For Entire Sample 1.54374 .69246 STUDENTS Education 1.69630 .64545 Law 1.71886 .50555 For Entire Sample 1.70584 .58686 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (1,76) D. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ PAYM .09674 .45384 .21317 SUPR .00143 .39642 .00361 COLL .83145 .44804 1.85576 WORK .41942 .48029 .87326 STUD .00969 .34881 .02778 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (5,380) D. F. (AVER.) .27175 .42548 .63868 F. N 45 33 78 45 33 78 45 33 78 45 33 78 45 33 78 SIGNIF OF F .64562 .95222 .17714 .35301 .86808 .67032 Appendix D-12 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Faculty of Various Departments FACTOR PAYMENT Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire SUPERVISOR Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire COLLEAGUES Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire WORK Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire Saudi Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Sample Sample Sample Sample MEAN 1.38095 1.12698 1.25714 .57143 1.44643 1.35714 1.26190 1.92810 1.75163 1.87059 2.15686 1.72794 1.96324 1.86835 1.62346 2.15432 2.10000 2.27778 1.68056 1.65278 1.85714 1.57516 1.44444 1.51765 1.88235 1.50000 1.66176 1.56443 146 STD DEV .67006 .56894 .46730 .24744 .91453 .64342 .66253 .48931 .63203 .61470 .78333 .45774 .58902 .54949 .67574 .46463 .59369 .82215 .50373 .77195 .63983 .72985 .74238 .47680 .90558 .71216 .60297 .66017 p p p Kiaunoounoxo mnmcnuounoxo NHmCDUJUHO\O Nnmcnoouuoxo z .p. 147 STUDENTS Curriculum 1.43827 .58627 9 Education 1.72222 .60604 9 English 1.17778 .74370 5 Research 1.66667 .28868 3 Arabic 1.78472 .28084 8 Sharia 1.74306 .73038 8 For Entire Sample 1.60847 .58563 42 PROMOTION Curriculum 1.34722 .77252 9 Education 1.33333 .71261 9 English 1.30000 .51992 5 Research 1.29167 .19094 3 Arabic 1.56250 .58248 8 Sharia 1.17187 .61939 8 For Entire Sample 1.34226 .61860 42 UNIVARIATE F-TESTS WITH (5,36) D. F. HYPOTHESIS ERROR F SIGNIF VARIATE MEANS SQ MEAN SQ OF F PROM .12757 .41810 .30512 .90661 PAYM .41334 .44250 .93412 .47060 SUPR .12685 .32625 .38879 .85320 COLL .53912 .39137 1.37753 .25572 WORK .11076 .48098 .23027 .94681 STUD .34165 .34314 .99563 .43422 AVERAGED F-TEST WITH (30,216) D. F. (AVER.) .27655 .40039 .69069 .88651 Appendix D-13 MANOVA: Job Satisfaction in Faculty of Various Departments FACTOR PAYMENT Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire SUPERVISOR Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire COLLEAGUES Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire WORK Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire All Professors CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Sample Sample Sample Sample MEAN 1.33333 1.40952 1.27619 .57143 1.34286 1.33333 1.30952 2.00784 1.76863 2.01961 2.15686 2.00392 1.79608 1.92836 1.74074 2.24815 2.14815 2.27778 1.80370 1.78148 1.95726 1.68627 1.57255 1.56078 1.88235 1.55294 1.27843 1.54374 148 STD DEV .65168 .65436 .45326 .24744 .97011 .57566 .67022 .56372 .63373 .69162 .78333 .52541 .71523 .62553 .66324 .48426 .67706 .82215 .60962 .79390 .67306 .66241 .70394 .65724 .90558 .59359 .82367 .69246 15 15 15 15 78 15 15 15 15 15 78 15 15 15 15 15 78 15 15 15 15 15 78 STUDENTS Curriculum Education English Research Arabic Sharia For Entire Sample UNIVARIATE F—TESTS HYPOTHESIS VARIATE MEANS SQ PAYM .36694 SUPR .22143 COLL .72888 WORK .34452 STUD .19676 (AVER.) .37171 149 .65926 .87037 .55926 .66667 .80741 .64074 .70584 HFJFJHFJFJH ERROR MEAN SQ .45491 .40308 .43386 .48888 .35466 .42708 .63927 .62101 .67894 .28868 .38368 .63996 .58686 WITH (5, 72) D. F. F .80661 .54933 1.67998 .70473 .55479 AVERAGED F- TEST WITH (25, 360) D. F. 035 15 15 15 3 15 15 78 SIGNIF OF F .54871 .73829 .15040 .62173 .73418 .64761 HICH IT RTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES IINHIHHIIIHWI?INIHWI‘IWIWI 3104684687 IGAN S 3129