The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. emeraldinsight. com/0954-478X. htm TQM 18,5 The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education Shun-Hsing Chen Department of Industrial Engineering, Chung-Yuan University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, Republic of China and Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Chin-Min Institute of Technology, Chung-Li, Taiwan, Republic of China 484 Ching-Chow Yang and Jiun-Yan Shiau Department of Industrial Engineering, Chung-Yuan University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, Republic of China, and Hui-Hua Wang
Department of Applied Foreign Languages, Chin-Min Institute of Technology, Chung-Li, Taiwan, Republic of China Abstract Purpose – Most studies on higher education focus on students as customers, and evaluate student levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their programs, while generally neglecting teacher work satisfaction.
Thus, this study evaluates how employee dissatisfaction with various investment items determines the improvement priority. Design/methodology/approach – This study used the academic literature to establish a satisfaction model for higher education employees.
The model is divided into six dimensions: organisation vision, respect, result feedback and motivation, management system, pay and bene? ts, and work environment.
Using a questionnaire based on the model, 248 teachers were surveyed to investigate and analyze their importance-satisfaction level. The importance-satisfaction model (I-S model) was then applied to place each quality attribute into the I-S model, and thus determine the improvement strategy. Findings – The analytical results showed that higher education employees focus on high salaries and fair romotion systems. Investigations of the job satisfaction of college teachers in Europe and America have produced similar results. Originality/value – The employee satisfaction model for the higher education sector not only considers satisfaction levels but also degrees of importance in deciding the improvement strategy. Keywords Employees, Job satisfaction, Higher education, Quality Paper type Research paper The TQM Magazine Vol. 18 No. 5, 2006 pp. 484-500 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0954-478X DOI 10. 1108/09544780610685467
Introduction Improving customer satisfaction not only raises company pro? ts, but also facilitates company development (Dubrovski, 2001). Previous studies have proposed that employees are the greatest assets of a company, and that satis? ed customers must satisfy employee requirements (Nebeker et al. , 2001). Employee satisfaction in? uences organisational performance as much as customer satisfaction. Employees are the internal customers of the business; they satisfy the current working environment and are willing to cooperate with the business to accomplish business goals.
Teachers are the employees of education organisations, and teacher satisfaction with the working environment can promote teaching and research quality. Therefore, teacher requirements must be ful? lled to improve the working environment and enable teachers to achieve outstanding research and teaching performance. In higher education, most studies focus on students as “customers”, and evaluate their level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their programs of study (Comm and Mathaisel, 2000), while generally neglecting teacher work satisfaction.
While several employee satisfaction studies have been performed, very few deal with university teachers or academics in general (Ward and Sloane, 1998). Since employee satisfaction has been found to be as important as customer (student) satisfaction (Oshagbemi, 1997a), research on higher education quality has now also begun to considering academic satisfaction (Comm and Mathaisel, 2003). The literature on employee satisfaction remains immature compared to that on customer satisfaction. Therefore, employee satisfaction surveys, particularly on employee satisfaction in the higher education sector, still require study and survey.
Questionnaires, as well as employee interviews can also be applied to survey employee satisfaction. Businesses frequently design questionnaires from the perspective of managers, and thus the questionnaire items generally do not re? ect real employee requirements (Comm and Mathaisel, 2000); thus, the survey results do not improve actual employee satisfaction levels. Consequently, this study evaluates how employee dissatisfaction with various investment items determines the improvement priority. Literature review Employee satisfaction for higher education Organisations strongly desire job satisfaction from their employees (Oshagbemi, 2003).
Job satisfaction has been found to signi? cantly in? uence job performance, absenteeism, turnover, and psychological distress (Andrisani, 1978; Davis, 1992; Spector, 1997). Dissatis? ed workers are prone to excessive turnover and absenteeism. Understanding job satisfaction thus may be linked to performance, organisational productivity and other issues, including labour turnover (Dickter et al. , 1996; Lee et al. , 1999; Melamed et al. , 1995; Sekoran and Jauch, 1978). Employee satisfaction is as important as customer satisfaction in in? uencing organisational performance.
Lee (1988) showed that job satisfaction is among the best predictors of turnover. Job satisfaction also in? uences customer perceptions of service quality (Rafaeli, 1989; Schneider and Bowen, 1985). Additionally, Williams (1995) found that employee bene? ts in? uence job satisfaction. Indirect costs associated with job dissatisfaction include training, recruiting and learning curve inef? ciencies, as well as reduction in the client base (Brown and Mitchell, 1993). Conversely, employee satisfaction can improve productivity, reduce staff turnover and enhance creativity and commitment.
Therefore, employee satisfaction should not be ignored and yet very few businesses seriously consider employee satisfaction (Ulmer et al. , 1999). The objectives of higher education are to provide in-depth knowledge, seek academic development, educate students, and coordinate national development demands (Johnes and Taylor, 1990). Perkins (1973) proposed that university teachers ful? ll three major functions, namely teaching, researching and administration and management. Consequently, university teacher satisfaction is related to the functions of higher Employee satisfaction model 485
TQM 18,5 486 education. Dalton and Pica (1998) found that the quality of faculty and instruction are important elements for satisfying business undergraduates and graduates, and that business placement and services were important to students. Similarly, in the higher education sector, Oshagbemi (1997a) investigated job satisfaction among university professors. Hagedorn (1994) examined the satisfaction of academic staff using various variables, including salary, perceived support from colleagues, satisfaction with administration, enjoyment of student interaction and perceived stress levels.
Employee importance and satisfaction survey The purposes of employee satisfaction surveys are not only to discover employee satisfaction levels, but also to determine necessary improvements via the results of employee satisfaction surveys. Employee satisfaction surveys commonly apply questionnaire and complaint analyses. However, complaint analysis is a passive method, which cannot fully determine employee satisfaction. Recently, ? rms have increasingly started using questionnaire surveys (Yang, 2003a). Some businesses apply customer satisfaction survey models when devising employee satisfaction surveys (Lam et al. , 2001), as in this study.
The SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al. , 1985, 1988, 1991) is the best-known service quality measurement model. SERVQUAL measures the gap between customer perceptions and expectations of service quality to determine perceived service quality. Comm and Mathaiael (2000) applied SERVQUAL to devise employee satisfaction surveys, and de? ne “employee satisfaction” as the gap between the works related perceptions and expectations of employees. Some studies apply the SERVQUAL method to carry out employee satisfaction surveys, which replace the expectation values with the importance values, and cite the theory of McDougall and Levesque (1992).
The author of this study recently conducted a study referring to customer satisfaction surveys in business, and showed that the importance and expectation values are not equivalent; therefore expectation values should not be replaced with importance values. Yang (2003b) also found that the importance and expectation values were not synonymous. As scholars study service quality, and businesses measure employee satisfaction, SERVQUAL is generally applied as an investigative tool. However, the SERVQUAL method is dif? cult to apply to business. Yang (2003b) indicated that the SERVQUAL questionnaire design has a number of limitations.
Customers and employees have dif? culties in answering the SERVQUAL questionnaire, particularly the “expectations” section. Taiwanese businesses generally apply traditional satisfaction surveys instead. For the above reasons, this study applies the I-S model rather than SERVQUAL to analyses employee satisfaction. Importance-satisfaction model (I-S model) Low-quality attributes should not be the only consideration when designing improvement plans. Usually, the customer (employee) measures the quality of goods or services based on several important attributes or elements (Berry et al. 1990; Deming, 1986). The customer (employee) evaluates product or service quality by considering several important quality attributes; therefore ? rms must take actions to improve the attributes that are important to the customer but which have low satisfaction levels. Figure 1 shows the analytical results of an I-S model survey conducted by Yang (2003a). The results for each quality attribute are placed in the model and then improvement strategies are considered based on the position of each item. Employee satisfaction model 487 Figure 1.
Importance-satisfaction model Establishment of employee satisfaction model The most commonly used methods for importance-satisfaction surveys are to examine the thoughts and satisfaction of subjects via questionnaires; the dimensions of the questionnaires are used to explain the determinants. The dimensions of the determinants for employee satisfaction surveys vary among different businesses or organisations, but the differences are not obvious; moreover, the structure of employee satisfaction models for higher education is also identical.
The following documents were referred to in discussing the determinants of employee satisfaction in the ? eld of higher education. Oshagbemi (1997b) measured job satisfaction for 566 college teachers, as shown below: . teaching; . research; . administration and management; . present pay; . promotions; . supervision/supervisor behaviour; . behaviour of co-workers; and . physical conditions/working facilities. Fosam et al. (1998) analysed police organisations to ? nd a suitable employee satisfaction model taking the South Yorkshire Police (SYP) as an example. As shown in Figure 2.
Comm and Mathaisel (2000) used SERVQUAL to conduct questionnaire surveys on 606 employees of a private higher education organisations to identify the determinants of satisfaction within educational organisations. The ? ndings were as follows: . workload; . work atmosphere; . decision-making; . ethics/fairness; TQM 18,5 488 Figure 2. Employee satisfaction model . . . . . . customer focus; supervision; goals and objectives; training and development; pay; and bene? ts. ? ? Kusku (2001) proposed applying employee satisfaction surveys to the employees of a Turkish college, and applied the following dimensions for measuring their satisfaction: . eneral satisfaction; . management satisfaction; . colleagues; . other working group satisfaction; . job satisfaction; . work environment; and . salary satisfaction. Metle (2003) conducted employment satisfaction surveys on female employees in the Kuwaiti public government sector (KGS), and identi? ed the following employment satisfaction factors: . overall job satisfaction; . pay and security; . co-workers; . supervision; . promotion; and . content of work. Since the satisfaction of higher education employees has many contributing factors, no complete models can be followed.
To establish an employee satisfaction measurement model for the higher education sectors this study applied the employee satisfaction model designed by Fosam et al. (1998), the needs theory of Maslow et al. (1998), and the two-factors theory of Herzberg (1966). This model is designed for university teachers only, and excludes of? ce employees, owing to the different quality attributes of teachers and of? ce employees. The quality attributes for teachers are divided into six dimensions (Figure 3): (1) organisation vision; (2) respect; (3) result feedback and motivation; (4) management system; (5) pay and bene? s; and (6) work environment. Methodology Case study Chin-Min Institute of Technology (CMIT) is a private university located in middle Taiwan. The school was established in 1985, and the campus has an area of 9 ha. However, due to serious adverse changes in the external environment and ? nancial dif? culties in the management of the school’s assets, which resulted in 1. 1 billion NT$ dollars of long-term and short-term debts, the institution became unable to continue operating normally. The school thus came under the control of the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 2001.
Questionnaire design and structure In order to measure the satisfaction levels of higher education teachers, their requirements must be determined before designing the questionnaire. These requirements, termed “quality attributes” in this study, are also the items that teachers emphasise most strongly. Different businesses have various management models and business cultures, and thus also have different employee requirements. Employee satisfaction model 489 Figure 3. Employee satisfaction model for higher education sector TQM 18,5 490
Therefore, different businesses cannot apply the same measurement model. Table I shows the factors used for measuring employee satisfaction with higher education obtained from understanding the functions of higher education and discussing with experts, schools’ personnel directors and 14 teachers, and then eliminating the unnecessary or inappropriate quality attributes. The following ? ndings were obtained: . organisation vision (seven items); . respect (four items); . result feedback and motivation (? ve items); . management system (eight items); . pay and bene? ts (six items); and . ork environment (nine items). This questionnaire was divided into three parts, as follows: (1) Demographics. Including sex, age, quali? cations, years of service, and years at present school. (2) Importance survey. The importance survey scale ranged from 1 to 7 (with 1 representing extremely low importance and 7 representing extremely high importance). (3) Satisfaction survey. The satisfaction survey scale ranged from 1 to 7 (with 1 representing extremely dissatis? ed and 7 representing extremely satis? ed). Data collection and analysis This study issued a questionnaire to all teachers at CMIT.
A total of 248 questionnaires were issued and 192 were returned (a response rate of 77. 42 percent). Analysis of reliability and validity Reliability is generally measured by Cronbach’s (a; the Cronbach’s a of employee measurements for higher education was calculated using the statistical software, SPSS. The Cronbach’s a of employee importance was 0. 9425, and the Cronbach’s a of employee satisfaction was 0. 9587. The differences between these two ? gures are small, among 0. 94 , 0. 95, which indicates that the questionnaires administered in this study are highly reliable.
After the questionnaire was retrieved, the analysis of reliability and validity on the six dimensions of satisfaction model was conducted ? rst. According to Gay (1992), a reliability coef? cient exceeding 0. 8 for any test or scale was the minimum acceptable reliability coef? cient. In terms of validity, the questionnaire was designed to acquire data according to the theory-model related studies. This study also conducted interviews with HR directors and discussions with teachers. The feedback obtained indicated that the questionnaire had extremely high reliability and validity (Table II).
Importance and satisfaction quality attribute analysis The importance of requirements represents the levels of signi? cance of the quality attributes for all teachers. Normally, teachers would hope that schools would provide the highest service standards for the important quality attributes. The importance of quality attributes can re? ect teacher requirements. This study ranked all of the quality attributes in order of importance and satisfaction. Needs theory of Maslow Organisation vision Two factors theory of Herzberg Evaluation dimensions Evaluation items of quality elements Self- actualization needs
Motivation factor Respect Esteem needs Result feedback and motivation Social needs Management systems School’s entire development plan School’s reputation and image School’s participation in local culture or public welfare activities School principal’s perspective School principal’s and directors’ ambition Help teachers develop self-visions Participation in school’s major policy decisions Professional knowledge is respected Mutual respect among teachers Respect for their teachers by students Students’ outstanding performances Achievements of teaching and research Rewards and glori? ation for outstanding performances Provision of achievements rewards Support for the results of teaching and research Allow teachers to know school’s operating conditions Provision of fair promotion systems Provision of good management systems Clear system of rewards and penalties Directors with leadership and managerial capacity Open system of directors’ assignation Provision of smooth communication channels Introduction of innovation management systems Provision of high-quality service processes (continued)
Employee satisfaction model 491 Table I. Evaluation dimensions and attributes of teacher satisfaction, and the relationship between needs theory and two-factor theory 492 TQM 18,5 Needs theory of Maslow Hygiene factor Pay and bene? ts Safety needs Physiological needs Table I. Two factors theory of Herzberg Evaluation dimensions Evaluation items of quality elements Work environment Provision of good salaries systems Provision of working security systems Provision of af? iated kindergartens Provision of good retirement systems Provision of lodging, travel related welfare allowances Provision of subsidies for further education Provision of abundant library facilities Provision of complete teaching instruments Provision of convenient parking Provision of dining diversity Independent and spacious research space Provision of hygienic dining environments Provision of educative and training environments Provision of abundant research resources Provision of advanced information Analysis of importance quality attributes The top ? e quality attributes for higher education employees (marked with a) as listed in Table III, were: provision of good salary systems (6. 839); provision of fair promotion systems (6. 821); provision of good retirement systems (6. 664); provision of work security systems (6. 658), and provision of abundant research resources (6. 513). The bottom 35-39 in terms of importance ranking were as follows (marked in a gray background): provision of good management systems (4. 756); provision of convenient parking (4. 302), provision of lodging, travel related welfare allowances (4. 36); provision of hygienic dining environments (4. 062), and provision of dining diversity (4. 029). Teachers are most concerned with salaries and work security, and wish to have stable jobs and salaries. Teachers are concerned with promotion opportunities to a higher level, so fair promotion systems are very important. Additionally, good retirement systems and long-term work security enhance teacher con? dence at school; research is fundamental to the work of teachers, and thus abundant research resources are also crucial.
The analytical results demonstrate that teachers focus on salaries and fair promotion, and care little about welfare and working environments. Analysis of satisfaction quality attributes The top ? ve quality attributes (marked with a) in the satisfaction ranking are as follows (Table III): provision of convenient parking (6. 575); respect for their teachers by students (5. 677); support for the results of teaching and research (5. 664); school participation in local culture or public welfare activities (5. 569), and provision of further education subsidies (5. 568).
The bottom 35-39 items in the satisfaction ranking was as follows (marked in a gray background): provision of abundant library facilities (3. 553); provision of af? liated kindergartens (3. 511); provision of work security systems (3. 256); provision of fair promotion systems (3. 152), and provision of good salaries for teachers (3. 098). This case study is located in the suburbs in Taiwan, and thus parking was the area with highest teacher satisfaction. Additionally, due to the strict school regulations, students are extremely respectful and obedient to their teachers.
Thus, teachers are highly satis? ed with student behaviours. The school encourages teachers to produce high quality research by providing monetary incentives; for example, there is a reward of NT$60000 for teachers who successfully publish papers in international journals. The school focuses on communication between business and public welfare activities; thus teachers, businesses and the wider community frequently interact, enhancing the practical experience of teachers. The school encourages further education for teachers by providing ? xible schedules and a NT$5000 monthly allowance. The above requirements are the ? ve most important items for teacher satisfaction. Employee satisfaction model 493 Dimensions Organisation vision Respect Result feedback and motivation Management systems Pay and bene? ts Work environment Importance survey Cronbach’s a 0. 905 0. 917 0. 911 0. 865 0. 872 0. 819 Satisfaction survey Cronbach’s a 0. 894 0. 885 0. 909 0. 837 0. 874 0. 828 Table II. Reliability and validity for the six dimensions of employee importance and satisfaction survey
TQM 18,5 No. 1 2 3 Items School’s entire development plan School’s reputation and image School’s participation in local culture or public welfare activities School principal’s perspective School principal’s and directors’ ambition Help teachers develop self-visions Participation in school’s major policy decisions Professional knowledge is respected Mutual respect among teachers Respect for their teachers by students Students’ outstanding performances Achievements of teaching and research Rewards and glori? ation for outstanding performances Provision of achievements rewards Support for the results of teaching and research Allow teachers to know school’s operating conditions Provision of fair promotion systems Provision of good management systems Clear system of rewards and penalties Directors with leadership and managerial capacity Open system of directors’ assignation Provision of smooth communication channels Introduction of innovation management systems Provision of high-quality service processes Provision of good salaries systems Provision of working security systems Provision of af? iated kindergartens Provision of good retirement systems Provision of lodging, travel related welfare allowances Provision of subsidies for further education Provision of abundant library facilities Provision of complete teaching instruments Provision of convenient parking Provision of dining diversity Independent and spacious research space Provision of hygienic dining environments Provision of educative and training environments Provision of abundant research resources Provision of advanced information Importance Ranking Satisfaction Ranking 5. 877 6. 042 5. 04 6. 473 5. 809 5. 926 5. 766 6. 269 5. 964 5. 304 5. 162 6. 435 6. 074 5. 936 6. 133 5. 023 6. 821 4. 756 5. 087 5. 313 4. 897 5. 356 5. 632 5. 74 6. 839 6. 658 6. 221 6. 664 4. 236 4. 859 6. 122 5. 896 4. 302 4. 029 5. 667 4. 062 5. 394 6. 513 5. 753 18 13 30 6 19 16 20 8 14 28 29 7 12 15 10 32 2a 35 31 27 33 26 24 22 1a 4a 9 3a 37 34 11 17 36 39 23 38 25 5a 21 4. 766 4. 964 5. 569 4. 899 4. 768 4. 951 5. 385 5. 567 4. 722 5. 677 4. 026 5. 033 5. 258 3. 655 5. 664 4. 568 3. 152 3. 745 3. 589 3. 795 3. 679 4. 959 4. 762 4. 375 3. 098 3. 256 3. 511 4. 869 5. 54 5. 568 3. 553 3. 668 6. 575 5. 081 4. 084 4. 684 4. 353 4. 359 4. 869 19 12 4a 15 18 14 7 6 21 2a 28 11 8 33 3a 23 38 30 34 29 31 13 20 24 39 37 36 16 10 5a 35 32 1a 9 27 22 26 25 17 494 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Table III. Analysis of importance and satisfaction quality attributes Note: aReveals the top ? ve quality attributes Teachers are dissatis? ed with the lack of library facilities, and with the teaching and research requirements. Additionally, no kindergartens are af? iated with the school, so teachers must spend signi? cant time and money on taking care of their children. Furthermore, owing to the growth of new universities in recent ten years and declining birthrates, many schools have had dif? culty in recruiting students; the inability of schools to provide working security is concerning teachers. In educational working environments, teachers are most concerned with the prospects for promotion; however, the arti? cial factors in the promotion systems usually cause teachers to feel unfairness, mirroring the ? dings of research by other scholars (Oshagbemi, 1996). Studies of higher education employees in European and American demonstrate that salaries are the main item of ? ? dissatisfaction of teachers (Comm and Mathaisel, 2000; Kusku, 2001; Oshagbemi, 1997a, b) and then the promotion systems (Oshagbemi, 1996), demonstrating that the items of dissatisfaction for university teachers are the same in Eastern and Western countries. These analyses can help education providers to ful? ll teacher requirements and focus on improving those quality attributes that they are most dissatis? d with. Importance-satisfaction model (I-S model) applications The purpose of employee satisfaction surveys is to determine the improvement quality attributes from the results of the analyses, in situations where the low quality attributes are usually those that must be improved. However, whether this objective is correct remains uncertain. For school satisfaction surveys, the most important work after statistics analyses and related discussions are to determine which quality attributes must be improved to raise employee satisfaction.
For organisations with abundant resources then more improvements can be made, but for those with limited resources it is necessary to prioritize certain attributes. Selecting the low-quality attributes is not the proper method since teachers measure their satisfaction by the importance of quality attributes; thus, the attributes that schools most need to improve should be the quality attributes that are rated as important by teachers and yet for which satisfaction scores are low. The I-S model is the best application model for this.
In the I-S model all quality attributes were placed in the model, and improvement strategies are then determined according to the position of each attribute. I-S model results Those quality attributes were placed in the I-S model, as shown in Figure 4: (1) Excellent area: 1. School’s entire development plan. 2. School’s reputation and image. 4. School principal’s perspective. 5. School principal and directors’ ambition. 6. Help teachers develop self-visions. 7. Participation in school’s major policy decisions. 8. professional knowledge is respected. 9.
Mutual respect among teachers 12. Achievements of teaching and research. 13. Rewards and glori? cation for the outstanding performances. 15. Support for the results of teaching and research. 28. Provision of good retirement systems. 39. Provision of advanced information. Employee satisfaction model 495 TQM 18,5 496 Figure 4. I-S model applications (2) To be improved area: 14. Provision of achievements rewards. 17. Provision of fair promotion systems. 24. Provision of high-quality services process. 25. Provision of good salaries systems. 26. Provision of working security systems. 7. Provision of af? liated kindergartens. 31. Provision of abundant library facilities. 32. Provision of complete teaching instrument. 35. Independent and spacious research space. 38. Provision of abundant research resources. (3) Surplus area: 3. School’s participation in local culture or public welfare activities. 10. Respect for their teachers by students. 16. Allow teachers to know school’s operating conditions. 22. Provision of smooth communication channels. 23. Introduction of innovation management systems. 29. Provision of lodging, travel related welfare allowances. 30.
Provision of subsidies for further education. 33. Provision of convenient parking. 34. Provision of dining diversity. 36. Provision of hygienic dining environments. (4) Careless area: 11. Students’ outstanding performances. 18. Provision of good management systems. 19. Clear systems of rewards and penalties. 20. Directors have leadership and managerial capacity. 21. Open systems of directors’ assignation. 37. Provision of educative and training environments. Figure 4 shows the average teacher satisfaction value of 4. 56, demonstrating that the school has acceptable operation performance.
The “excellent area”, in which teachers are completely satis? ed, includes 13 quality attributes; the “to be improved area”, in which teachers are dissatis? ed with the quality attributes and hope that schools can actively improve them contains ten attributes; the “surplus area”, indicating that the schools have acceptable performances in this items, contains ten attributes. Furthermore, the “careless area” contains six attributes; if school resources are limited, these quality attributes have a low priority. Furthermore, if school resources are abundant, these items should also be improved.
The quality attributes ranked 35-39th based on satisfaction all fell within the “to be improved area”, indicating that this model can also contain the dissatis? ed quality attributes and demonstrating the practicability of the model. Two quality attributes in the improvement region are worth discussing. The ? rst of these attributes is “Provision of good salaries systems” (No. 25). Teachers focus on salaries, and generally ignore other relevant welfare and research environments provided by the schools, or even randomly job-hop. The inability of schools to retain their core employees or to decrease employee turnover is a negative phenomenon.
The other notably item is “provision of fair promotion systems” (No. 17). Promotion leads to an increased salary, and consequently this item is strongly related to monetary value. This quality attribute can easily be enhanced by establishing fair promotion systems and applying them correctly. This item is the quality attribute that is easiest to overcome with minimal investment of resources. The items referred to No. 17 and 25 are both related to monetary rewards, and can help the education providers to identify corresponding strategies for satisfying the requirements of teachers.
Conclusions As organisations focus on customer relationship management, they should not forget that employees are also internal customers. Organisations have satis? ed their customers only if they have also satis? ed their employees. Businesses generally determine enhancement priorities based on the low satisfaction items, rather than considering actual employee requirements. Although this approach improved some dissatis? ed quality attributes, these attributes are not the main focuses of employees. Consequently, considerable money is spent on improvement of dissatis? ed quality attributes without improving employee satisfaction.
Using higher education employees as examples, this study proposed the improvement priority based on the perspectives of importance and satisfaction, and the I-S model theory; schools, based on their own resources, can determine the improvement strategies and priorities to satisfy actual employee requirements. For education organisations, employees placing an excessive Employee satisfaction model 497 TQM 18,5 value on their salaries indicate that employee may randomly job-hop to chase higher salaries, impacting school morale. This study can help education providers to understand the wishes of the teachers, which include ? ancial satisfaction, related welfare and fair promotion systems; teacher satisfaction with schools management can bene? t both teachers and schools. References Andrisani, P. (1978), “Job satisfaction among working women”, Signs, Vol. 3, pp. 588-607. Berry, L. L. , Zeithaml, V. A. and Parasuraman, A. (1990), “Five imperatives for improving service quality”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 29-38. Brown, A. K. and Mitchell, T. (1993), “Organizational obstacles: links with ? nancial performance, customer satisfaction, and job satisfaction in a service environment”, Human Relations, June. Comm, C. L. and Mathaisel, D. F. X. 2000), “Assessing employee satisfaction in service ? rms: an example in high education”, The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, pp. 43-53, Fair? eld, Spring. Comm, C. L. and Mathaisel, D. F. X. (2003), “A case study of the implications of faculty workload and compensation for improving academic quality”, The international Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 200-10. Dalton, D. and Pica, J. (1998), “Student satisfaction with undergraduate and MBA DS/P/IS programs”, Decision Line, Vol. 29 No. 3. Davis, R. (1992), “Person-environment ? t and job satisfaction”, in Cranny, C. J. , Smith, P. C. and Stone, E. F. Eds), Job Satisfaction, Lexington Books, New York, NY, pp. 69-880. Deming, J. (1986), Out of Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Dickter, D. , Roznowski, M. and Harrison, D. (1996), “Temporal tempering: an event history analysis of the process of voluntary turnovers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 705-16. Dubrovski, D. (2001), “The role of customer satisfaction in achieving business excellence”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 Nos 7/8, pp. 920-5. Fosam, E. B. , Grimsley, M. F. J. and Wisher, S. J. (1998), “Exploring models for employee satisfaction-with particular reference to a police force”, Total Quality Management, No. , pp. 235-47. Gay, L. R. (1992), Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application, Macmillan, New York, NY. Hagedorn, L. S. (1994), “Retirement proximity’s role in the prediction of satisfaction in academe”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 711-28. Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, Wiley, New York, NY. Johnes, J. and Taylor, J. (1990), Performance Indicators in Higher Education: Buckingham, The Society for Research into Higher Education Open University, Buckingham. ? ? , Kusku F. (2001), “Dimensions of employee satisfaction: a state university example”, METU Studies in Development, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp. 399-430. Lam, T. , Zhang, H. and Baum, T. (2001), “An investigation of employees’ job satisfaction: the case of hotels in Hong Kong”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 157-65. Lee, T. (1988), “How job dissatisfaction leads to turnover”, Journal of Business and psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 263-71. 498 Lee, T. , Mitchell, T. , Holtom, B. , McDaniel, L. and Hill, J. (1999), “The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: a replication and extension”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 450-62. McDougall, G. and Levesque, T. (1992), “The measurement of service quality: some methodology ? ssues”, pp. 411-30, 2eme, Seminaire International de Recherche en Management des Activates de Service. Maslow, A. H. , Deborah, C. S. and Gary, H. (1998), Maslow on Management, Wiley, New York, NY. Melamed, S. , Ben-Avi, I. , Luz, J. and Green, M. (1995), “Objective and subjective work monotony: effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 29-42. Metle, M. K. (2003), “The impact of education on attitudes of female government employees”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8, pp. 03-26. Nebeker, D. , Busso, L. , Werenfels, P. D. , Diallo, H. , Czekajewski, A. and Ferdman, B. (2001), “Airline station performance as a function of employee satisfaction”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 6, pp. 29-45. Oshagbemi, T. (1996), “Job satisfaction of UK academics”, Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-400. Oshagbemi, T. (1997a), “Job satisfaction pro? les of university professors”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-39. Oshagbemi, T. (1997b), “Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education”, Education & Training, Vol. 9 Nos 8/9, pp. 354-9. Oshagbemi, T. (2003), “Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK universities”, International Journal of Social economics, Vol. 30 Nos 11/12, pp. 1210-32. Parasuraman, A. , Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 41-50. Parasuraman, A. , Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple -item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A. , Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1991), “Re? nement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-5. Perkins, J. A. (1973), The University as an Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rafaeli, A. (1989), “When cashiers meet customers: an analysis of the role of supermarket cashiers”, Academy of Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 245-73. Schneider, B. and Bowen, D. (1985), “Employee and customer perceptions of service in bands: replication and extension”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 423-33. Sekoran, U. and Jauch, L. R. 1978), “Employee orientation job satisfaction among professional employees in hospitals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 43-56. Spector, P. E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Ulmer, D. , Syptak, J. M. and Marsland, D. W. (1999), “Job satisfaction: putting theory into practice”, Family Practice Management, October. Ward, M. and Sloane, P. (1998), “Job satisfaction: the case of the Scottish academic profession”, mimeo, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. Employee satisfaction model 499 TQM 18,5 Williams, M. L. (1995), “Antecedents of employee bene? level satisfaction”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1097-128. Yang, C. C. (2003a), “Improvement actions based on the customers’ satisfaction survey”, TQM & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 919-30. Yang, C. C. (2003b), “Establishment and applications of the integrated model of the measurement of service quality”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 310-24. Corresponding author Shun-Hsing Chen can be contacted at: [email protected] edu. tw 500 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] com Or visit our web site for further details: www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints
Cite this The Development of an Employee Satisfaction Model for Higher Education
The Development of an Employee Satisfaction Model for Higher Education. (2016, Nov 13). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/the-development-of-an-employee-satisfaction-model-for-higher-education/