Fortitude of
Job Satisfaction of
Wolkite University Instructors - the exercise of Binary Logistic
Regression Approach
Department of
Statistics,
College of
Natural and Computational Sciences,
Wolkite
University, Ethiopia
Email: moh3md@gmail.com
Dr MOHD
ABASS BHAT
Department of Accounting and Finance
College of Business and Economic,
Assosa University, Ethiopia (Africa)
Email: abass.ashoor.bhat788@gmail.com
Dr SHAGUFTA TARIQ KHAN
Department of Accounting
Jazan University, Saudi Arabia
Email: sitariq@jazanu.edu.sa
Department of
Management,
College of
Business and Economics,
Job satisfaction is
one of the key factors in institutional dynamics and is generally considered to
be primary dependent variable in terms of which effectiveness of an organization’s
human resource is evaluated. For a successful education system, therefore, understanding
the factors that affect the satisfaction of teachers at the workplace is of
paramount importance. Thus,
the present study was attempted to fortitude of Job Satisfaction of Wolkite University instructors
by exercise of Binary Logistic Regression Approach. The subjects which were
involved in the study comprised a sample from level of education with in GA1=
27, GA2= 37, GA3= 4, MASTER =31 and PHD= 2. Out of this 64 are females and 612
are males. The sample was selected by using stratification over simple random
sampling level of education, and the total sample size was 101 taken from 676.
In order to get an appropriate finding, it uses stratification over simple
random sampling and self-administered questionnaire for sampled instructors.
The study uses both descriptive and inferential statistics of data analysis,
which means from descriptive frequency table, cross tab and from inferential
statistics Chi-square test of associations and Binary Logistic Regression. The
findings indicate 48.5% of the instructors are satisfied and 51.5% of
instructors are not satisfied with their job. In Chi square test of association
some variables such as motivation of students (sig=0.017), educational level (sig=0.019),
Average monthly salary (sig=0.42), salary satisfaction of instructions (sig=0.001)
and teaching experience (sig=0.005) has association with job satisfaction. Therefore, the
universities should improve its policies and working environment relating to
these other factors to enhance lecturer job satisfaction level with the
priority given to factors having stronger effects on lecturer job satisfaction.
However, the study was based on a single institution.
Key
words: - Job satisfaction, Educational institutions, Binary Logistic
Regression
Educational institutions play an important role in the development of human resource in a developing society. They affect the relationship with teachers, students and management in educational institution influencing thereby job satisfaction of employees. Job satisfaction represents one of the most complex areas facing today’s managers when it comes to managing their employees. Employee satisfaction is of the utmost importance in an organization because it depends on productivity (Wagner & Gooding 1987). If your employees are satisfied they would produce superior quality performance in optimal time and lead to development and growth. Satisfied employees are also more likely to be creative and innovative and come up with breakthroughs that allow changing positively with time. Understanding the factors that contribute to job satisfaction is essential because it helps to identify the reasons and areas which employees are not satisfied with. Through this understanding, changes and adjustments of organizational policies, organizational structure and job design can be altered to enhance the level of employee job satisfaction. There are numerous factors that might discourage the employees and lead to job dissatisfaction such as high stress, lack of organizational communication, lack of recognition, limited opportunity for personal and career growth, job characteristics, job security, pay, social relationship within an organization and many more.
Within the university context, teachers are the biggest human capital resource. To improve the information base needed to support a successful educational system, understanding factors that contribute to the job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of teachers is crucial. Its significance in responding to the professional needs of workers has been recognized and studies have been conducted to analyze the conditions and factors involved in job satisfaction among teachers (Hina et al., 2014; Mathur, & Mehta, 2015; Pan et al., 2015; Hashim et al., 2016; Adhikari, & Barbhuiya, 2016; Stankovska et al., 2017; Chipunza, & Malo, 2017). Satisfaction with teaching as a career is an important policy issue as it is linked to the effectiveness of teachers, which ultimately impacts student achievement (Ashton and Webb, 1986). In general, highly satisfied lecturers will be creative and motivated to create and preserve an environment conducive to learning. (Truell et al., 1998). Teachers will not be able to boost their performance and will not contribute to higher education if they are not satisfied with their profession. Thus, increase in job satisfaction could lead to higher effectiveness in performance.
Review
of literature
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to an employee’s emotional state which covers the complete range of emotions from positive to negative (Zhang, Yao, & Cheong, 2011). Thus, job satisfaction can also be defined as pleasantness or unpleasantness of employees during their work. Besides, job satisfaction can also be described as a positive feeling about a job or job experience (Tutuncu & Kozak, 2007). On the other hand, Fisher (2000) claimed that job satisfaction is a kind of attitude and attitudes generally contain two components which are affective component (feeling and emotional) and cognitive component (comparison, judgment and belief). Fincham, R. and Rhodes, P.S. (1988) identified two types of job satisfaction; firstly, the overall feeling about the job, and secondly, the feelings about the aspects of the job, such as benefits, salary, position, growth opportunities, work environment, and the relationships among employees. The considerable time spent by employees at the work place makes job satisfaction a significant factor since dissatisfaction can have an adverse impact on the individual’s personal life. Park (1992) noticed that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is more important for those doing difficult jobs than for those in less demanding jobs.
In order to measure job satisfaction, higher education has
considered various factors. For instance, Oshagbemi (1997) used eight
dimensions Viz. teaching, research, administration and management,
compensation, promotions, supervisory behavior, co-worker behavior and working
condition to measure satisfaction with the various components of the overall
job satisfaction of university teachers in the United Kingdom. Using seven
determinants such as general satisfaction, management satisfaction, peers,
other satisfaction of the working group, job satisfaction, work environment,
and salary satisfaction, Küskü (2003) measured job satisfaction in Turkey. Using
nine general factors (teaching, research, governance, remuneration, promotion
opportunities, supervision, co-worker behavior, work environment, and general
conditions), Ssesanga and Garrett (2005) measured faculty job satisfaction in the
context of Uganda. In a private university in China, Chen et al. (2006)
measured faculty job satisfaction using six factors which include vision of the
organization, respect, feedback and motivation for results, management system,
compensation and benefits and work environment.
According to Velnampy and Sivesan
(2012), job satisfaction can be determined by ten variables including payment,
happy to work, promotion, subordinate-supervisor relationship, direction of
supervisor, achievement, appreciation, participation in decision-making, proud
to work and enough description. The determinants of job satisfaction include
training and development, performance assessment, career planning, and
compensation in Ali Ahmad et al. (2014)'s study on the relationship between
human resource management practices and job satisfaction among faculty members
of both public and private universities in Pakistan.
According to Shafi (2016), job
satisfaction is most vital part of all teaching faculties and their work is necessary
for growth of the organization and development of the study. Dave and Raval (2015), concluded in their
study that the job satisfaction is determined to meet the requirements and
demands of academicians i.e., teacher‘s in-order to interact with or inspire
their students. Academicians have improved their knowledge, skills, ability as
compared to the first stage of classes; it reflects that they satisfy their
job. Aziri (2011) concluded that the satisfaction is most important role
aspects of any other profession. Therefore, the job satisfaction of academicians
in higher educational sector depends on their behavior so that they can be
perform their duties with full efforts, dedicative, sincere and diligence of
their knowledge and data to their students development.
In the context of higher education from 2000 to 2018, an in-depth literature review was conducted based on the job satisfaction of teachers, revealing the following critical factors: recognition, growth, motivation, opportunities for promotion, work-life balance, human relationships, benefits, rewards, working conditions, recognition, or organizational support. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) Scale by Spector (1985; 1997), adapted for application to this empirical survey, includes some of the aspects highlighted in the theoretical review.
Fortitude of Job Satisfaction
Educational level
In
comparison to manufacturing organizations, educated employees influence the
degree of association between education and service satisfaction. For example,
in manufacturing organizations, education can be negatively associated with
satisfaction because education can increase job expectations beyond a level
generally attainable in these settings. On the other hand, service
organizations may be able to meet the expectations of highly educated employees
or even exceed them. Satisfaction may be positively linked to education (Metle,
2001; Glenn and Weaver, 1982).
Salary satisfaction
It is noteworthy that there were previous studies indicated that the pay amount or salary amount is not the main determinant for job satisfaction. The comparison of income which employees set up as referential point is more significant in influencing employees’ job satisfaction. Given the similar qualifications and specifications, if an employee believes that the salary offered in other organization is higher, he or she will be dissatisfied even his or her salary is considered high as compared with the salaries in the organization he or she works in (Sharma and Jyoti, 2006). According to Miller (2014), more than half of employees feel satisfied if they are paid competitively with the local market. As a result of the empirical studies, it is believed that pay is able to influence the job satisfaction level of employees.
Environmental effect
It
has been experienced that challenging jobs create an environment of
satisfaction. High strained jobs result in ill health (emotional exhaustion, psychometric
health problems) and active jobs give rise to positive outcomes like job challenge
and Job Satisfaction (Jonge et al., 2000). The nature of work done is very
important element of Job Satisfaction. Infact, it can probably be said that it
is the major determinant of Job Satisfaction. Herzberg et al. (1959) found
positive events dominated with reference to intrinsic aspect of job itself
while negative events dominated to extrinsic aspect of Job Satisfaction.
Relationship with Co-worker
The
Herzberg theory (1959) emphasized job characteristics rather than individual
differences. It suggested that jobs with opportunities for growth, achievement,
recognition and advancement enhance motivation and Job Satisfaction. Career
planning and development have also been recognized for enhancing job
satisfaction of an individual (Sharma and Jyoti, 2006) and lack of career
development is reported to be directly and negatively related to job
satisfaction (Yousef, 2002).
Need of the Study
Instructors are not only tasked with
imparting knowledge but they often have the power to inspire or suppress
intellectual curiosity. University instructors in particular help to lay the
foundation upon which students’ attitudes towards education are built.
Education leaders agree that teacher satisfaction is a vital factor that
affects student achievement. Teachers' job satisfaction is one of the key
factors in institutional dynamics and is generally considered to be primary
dependent variable in terms of which effectiveness of an organization’s human
resource is evaluated. Therefore, for a successful educational system, the
understanding of factors affecting the satisfaction of teachers at work is of
paramount importance. Several studies have examined the job satisfaction of
academic members in higher education in developed countries; however,
unfortunately, in our region, job satisfaction has not still received the
proper attention from neither scholars nor managers of various business
organizations. This research, however, focused only on the three most common
prevailing factors affecting job satisfaction in the workplace. The purpose of
this study, however, is to determine whether or not selected variables are
linked to Wolkites University in Ethiopia’s faculty job satisfaction. It is an
attempt to find out how faculty members feel about their jobs.
Research Methodology
=
=119, 
=
n =
= 101. So that our sample size was determined to be 101.To determine
each section (groups) sample size, we used stratified sample with proportional
allocation. Data analysis
involves many steps like tabulation and analyzing of the study in both
descriptive and inferential statistical. For this research we used Chi-square
test of dependence and logistic regression, to identify whether there is
association between the variables. Data was mainly analyzed in SPSS.Job satisfaction
could be measured as satisfied and unsatisfied (1= unsatisfied, 0 = satisfied)
toward their job. It is denoted by X.
Independent variables
v
Educational level (1=GA1 , 2 =GA2, 3=GA3 4 = Master, 5=PHD)
v
Salary satisfaction (1= low, 2 =
medium, 3 = high)
v
Environmental effect (1 = no, 2 = yes)
v
Experience (1). One (2). Two (3). Three (3).
above 3 years
v Relationship
with Co-worker (1=Fair,2=Good,3 = Excellent)
v
Motivation of Students (1 = high, 2 = medium,
3 = low)
v
Expectation of respodents (1= no, 2 = yes)
Research Model for Present Study
Table
1: Descriptive Statistics
|
Explanatory variables |
Coding |
Job satisfaction of respondents |
Total |
Chi-square |
||
|
Satisfied |
Unsatisfied |
D.F |
P-Value |
|||
|
Educational level of respondents |
GA1 |
6 22% |
21 78% |
27 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
GA2 |
22 59.5% |
15 40.5% |
37 100% |
4 |
0.019 |
|
|
GA3 |
2 50% |
2 50% |
4 100% |
|
|
|
|
Master |
17 54.8% |
14 45.2% |
31 100% |
|
|
|
|
Phd |
2 100% |
0 0% |
2 100% |
|
|
|
|
Motivation of respondents |
High |
14 73.7% |
5 26.3% |
19 100% |
2 |
0.017 |
|
Medium |
29 47.5% |
32 52.5% |
61 100% |
|
|
|
|
Low |
6 8.3% |
15 91.7% |
21 100% |
|
|
|
|
Expectation of respondents |
YES |
17 81% |
4 19% |
21 100% |
1 |
0.001 |
|
NO |
32 40% |
48 60% |
80 100% |
|
|
|
|
R/n ship with Co-Worker |
Excellent |
37 48% |
40 52% |
77 100% |
|
|
|
Good |
12 60% |
8 40% |
20 100% |
2 |
0.089 |
|
|
Fair |
0 0 |
4 100% |
4 100% |
|
|
|
Source: SPSS output
From Table 1, instructors those who
have GA1 are 78% are unsatisfied, whereas 22% are satisfied with their job and instructors
who have GA2 are 41.7% are unsatisfied, whereas 58.3% are satisfied GA3 are 50%
are unsatisfied, whereas 50% are satisfied and instructors who have Master are
45.2% are unsatisfied, whereas 54.8% are satisfied and Ph.D are 100% are
satisfied with their job. Instructors those who have not got what
you expect from the institution are 60% are unsatisfied, whereas 40% are
satisfied from their job and instructors who have got what you expect from the
institution are 19% unsatisfied, whereas 81% are satisfied from their job.
Instructors those who have excellent relationship with the co- workers
are 52% are unsatisfied, whereas 48 are satisfied and who have good relationship
with co- workers are 40% unsatisfied,
whereas 60% are satisfied.
Table 2: Binary Logistic Regression Result
|
|
β |
S. E |
Wald |
D.F |
p-value |
Exp(β) |
95% CI for Exp(β) |
|
|
lower |
Upper |
|||||||
|
Edu level GA1 GA2 GA3 Master SalSatisfaction Satisfaction(1) Satisfaction(2) Enviro eff (1) |
3.041 1.259 2.851 .759 -4.707 -9.74 -2.420 |
1.440 1.069 1.96 1.016 1.207 .957 .956 |
6.237 4.461 1.387 2.157 .557 15.977 15.208 .953 6.412 |
4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 |
.101 .035** .239 .142 .455 .000** .000** .329 .011** |
20.934 3.523 17.306 2.135 .009 .378 .089 |
1.245 .433 .385 .291 .001 .053 .014 |
352.045 28.652 777.268 15.651 .096 2.668 .579 |
β: Coefficients of variables, D.F: Degree of Freedom, Exp(β):
Odds Ratio,**significant at 95 % Confidence level
Source: SPSS output
The result of the Binary Logistic
Regression model is presented in the above Table 2. Job satisfaction and
explanatory variables such as: - education level, salary satisfaction and
environmental effect are significant variables. Here, we interpret the results
of those significant variables.
Log (
)= exp [
o
3x1+16x2+18x3(1)]
=22.585+3.041edulevel (1)
-4.707salsat (1) -2.420enveff(1)
From the above fitted logistic model: -
The estimated odd’s ratio of instructor’s
educational level is e3.041=20.934 (95% CI; 1.245, 352.045). The odd’s
ratio indicates that GA1 instructors are 20.93 times more likely that to have
satisfied job, when the effects of the other variable are held constant. The
estimated odd’s ratio of instructors of Salary satisfaction is e-4.707=0.009(95%
CI; 0.001, 0.096). The odd ratio indicates that instructors whose satisfaction
in salary are 0.009 times less likely that to have satisfied job than that of
the reference category by keeping constant the effect of another independent
variable. The estimated odd ratio of instructors from environmental effect is e-2.420=0.089
(95% CI; 0.014, 0.576). The odd’s ratio indicates that instructors whose affect
by environmental effect are 0.089 times less likely that to have satisfied job
than that of the reference category by keeping constant the effect of another
independent variable.
The employment market is
heating up and universities start to worry about losing good talent and
struggling to retain them since human resources is one of the vital competitive
advantages. Some of the institutions are facing constant high unsatisfactory
performance and low productivity. Thus, better
understanding on the factors which influence job satisfaction is very crucial
for all institutions. Through the
understanding of the factors, institutions can
be aware of the symptoms beforehand and take precautions to support and
increase the job satisfaction level of employees. This study is an attempt to
investigate the factors that affect job satisfaction of Wolkite University instructors.
Wolkite University has 676 instructors who were currently on working and from
those 64 instructors are female and 612 instructors are male. The behavior of
this total population was estimated based on the sample size of 101. Accordingly,
descriptive analysis; inferential statistics, and Binary logistic Regression
techniques were used. The results indicate that among the assumed variables only some of the
variables significantly affect the job satisfaction of instructors. The major factors that affect the
job satisfaction of instructors
are based on their education level, motivation of
students, teaching, expectation etc. But there is no association between job
satisfaction of instructors and their marital status, condition of employment
and relationship with co- worker. Instructors who have experience of one year (25.8%),
whose experience is of two years (51.2%), whose experience is of three years (77.8%)
and whose experience is above three (55.6%)
are all satisfied with their jobs. Instructors who have educational levels GA1
are 22%, GA2 are 59.5%, GA3 are 50%, Master are 54.8 and Ph.D are 100% also satisfied
from their job. Generally, 48.5% of the instructors are satisfied with their
jobs due to their motivation of students, education level, gender, teaching
experience and expectation. However, 51.5% of instructors are not satisfied
with their job due to their marital status, condition of employment and
relationship with co- worker.
Practical implications
Organizations are facing the issue of
creating high job satisfaction among their employees. This study intends to
show a better understanding of the factors which emphasizes on job
satisfaction. In terms of practical implications, management is advised to
concern about the employee job satisfaction within their organizations. They
are encouraged to fully support and commit to policies and activities which can
be identified and designed through factors that can influence job satisfaction
in order to stimulate employees’ satisfaction.
Our
research was conducted to understand some of the challenges faced by higher
education teachers at Wolkite University in Ethiopia, and to provide some
helpful suggestions to assist educational administrators and policy makers in
the professional design and development of programs, taking current needs into
account. The responsibility of educational managers is to motivate, encourage
and retain teachers and maintain equity in universities (Toker, 2011). This
study may also provide universities with helpful suggestions on how to make
teachers more satisfied with their jobs and how to encourage positive aspects
of job satisfaction. Universities should improve
their policies and working environment related to these factors to increase the
level of job satisfaction of teachers with the priority given to factors that
have a greater impact on their job satisfaction.
We submit the following recommendations on the basis of the
findings of the current study:
Ø From the result of the research it can be seen that the instructors who have higher salary have been observed as satisfied with their jobs. So, it will be good if they are paid better than what they get.
Ø The ministry of education should pay attention and assign different levels of education for all the instructors from time to time.
Ø The administration of university should work to maximize the relationship between the co-workers.
Limitation
of Study
One of the drawbacks of
this study is moderate sample size, which includes a total of 101 responses for
the survey of instructors working at Wolkite University in applying a stratified random sampling. Certain constraints apply to the nature of the cross-sectional
design of our research. Only at a specific point in time did the research
portray the situation. As a result, only existing instructors collected data
and excluded those that were absent for health reasons. In addition, a single
institution was the basis of the study. Therefore, the results that have been
seen may not be representative of all Ethiopian universities. Future research
may rely on interviews and focus groups to provide more information about the
faculty.
Directions for future research
Further research could be
done by surveying more instructors from other universities to have deeper understanding about the
issue. Similarly well designed studies should be carried out at other universities
in order to clarify whether a different scenario will arise from the collected
data from different universities. Any researcher who
wants to conduct the research on job satisfaction of university instructors
should include other variables such as training opportunity, facility and
service, family size and promotional opportunity also.
References
Adhikari, K., & Barbhuiya, J. H. (2016). Mapping job
satisfaction of central university teachers. Splint International Journal of
Professionals, 3(11), 45-51.
Aziri, B. (2008). Menaxhimi i burimeve
njerëzore. Satisfaksioni nga puna dhe motivimi i punëtorëve, Tringa
Design, Gostivar, 46.
Bodla, A. A., Hussain, M., & Chen, C.
(2014). Determinants of job satisfaction in academic professionals of
Pakistan. Sukkur IBA Journal of Management and Business, 1(1), 20-39.
Chen, S., Yang, C., Shiau, J. and Wang, H. (2006). The
development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. The TQM
Magazine, 18(5), pp.484-500.
Chipunza, C., & Malo, B.
(2017). Organizational culture and job satisfaction among academic
professionals at a South African university of technology. Problems and
perspectives in management, (15, Iss. 2), 148-161
Fincham, R. and
Rhodes, P.S. (1988). The Individual Work and Organization, Weidenfeld
&
Fisher,
C. D. (2000). Mood and Emotions while Working: Missing Pieces of Job
Satisfaction?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 185-202.
Glen,
N.D. and Weaver, C.N. (1982). Enjoyment of work by full time workers in the
United
Hashim, M., Khattak, M.A., & Kee, D. (2016). Impact of
Servant Leadership on Job Satisfaction: A Study of Teaching Faculty in
Universities of Peshawar. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, Special
Issue, AIC 2016, 312-320.
Herzberg,
F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hina,
Q., Zamir, Sh., & Nudrat, S. (2014). Impact of employee benefits on Job
Satisfaction of Teachers at higher level. Journal of Education and Practice,
5(7), 122-129.
Jonge,
J., Dollord, F., Dormann, C. and Le, B.P (2000)., ‘The demand control model:
specific demands, specific control and well defined groups’, International
Journal of Stress Management, 7:4, 269-287
Knoop, R. (1995). Relationship among job
involvement, job satisfaction and organizational
Küskü, F. (2003). Employee satisfaction in higher education:
the case of academic and administrative staff in Turkey. Career Development
International, 8(7), pp.347-356.
Mathur, A., & Mehta, A. (2015). Factors affecting job
satisfaction among employees of higher education: A case study. Journal of
Strategic Human Resource Management, 4(1), 49-64.
doi:10.21863/jshrm/2015.4.1.006
Metle,
M. K. (2001). Education, job satisfaction and gender in Kuwait, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12:2, 311–332.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job Satisfaction and dissatisfaction in Higher Education. Education + Training, 39(9), 354-359.
Pan, B., Shen, X., Liu, L., Yang, Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Factors associated with job satisfaction among university teachers in northeastern region of China: A cross-sectional study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(10), 12761-12775.
Park,
A. (1992). Women, men and academic hierarchy: Exploring the relationship
between
rank
and sex, Oxford Review of Education, 18, 227-239.
Safi, M. H., Torkaman, N. S.,
& Arshi, S. (2015). Job Satisfaction and its Influencing Factors among
Shomal Health Center of Tehran Personnel in 2014.
Sharma, R. D., & Jyoti,
J. (2009). JOB SATISFACTION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY. Journal
of Services Research, 9(2).
Sharma,
R.D. And Jyoti, J. (2006). Job satisfaction among school teachers, IIMB Management
Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application,
assessment, causes, and consequences. London: Sage publications.
Toker B. (2011). Job satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey. Qual Assur Educ. 19(2):156-169.
Truell, A., Price, W. and Joyner, R. (1998). Job
Satisfaction among Community College Occupational-Technical Faculty, Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(2), pp.111-122.
Tutuncu,
O., & Kozak, M. (2007). An Investigation of Factors Affecting Job
Satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration , 1-19.
Velnampy,
T. and Sivesan, S. (2012). Determinants of Employees’ Job Satisfaction: A Study
of Banking Industries in Sri Lanka. Global Journal of Management and
Business Research, 12(22), 23-29
Wagner III, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987).
Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational
variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy
of management Journal, 30(3), 524-541
Webb, R. B., & Ashton, P. T. (1986).
Teacher motivation and the conditions of teaching: A call for ecological
reform. Journal of Thought, 43-60
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1997).
Shared Influence and Organizational Behaviour: A Meta Analysis of Situational
Variable Expected to Moderate Participation Outcome Relationship’. In Academy
of Management Proceedings (pp. 364-371)
Yousef,
D.A. (2002). The interactive effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on job
satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a moderated multiple
regression approach, International Journal of Stress Management, 7:4,
289-303.
Zhang, Y., Yao, X., & Cheong, J. O. (2011). City
Managers’ Job Satisfaction and Frustration: Factors and Implications. The
American Review of Public Administration , 670-685.
