Pacific B usiness R eview (International)

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management Indexed With Web of Science(ESCI)
ISSN: 0974-438X
Impact factor (SJIF): 6.56
RNI No.:RAJENG/2016/70346
Postal Reg. No.: RJ/UD/29-136/2017-2019
Editorial Board

Prof. B. P. Sharma
(Editor in Chief)

Dr. Khushbu Agarwal

Editorial Team

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

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



Department of Accounting and Finance

College of Business and Economic,

Assosa University, Ethiopia (Africa)


                                                      Dr SHAGUFTA TARIQ KHAN

                                                        Department of Accounting

                                                        Jazan University, Saudi Arabia


                                                            FUAD HUSSIEN

Department of Management,

College of Business and Economics,

Wolkite University, Ethiopia



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  

The study area comprised of Wolkite University which is one of the higher educational institutions in southwestern Ethiopia and is the administrative center of garage zone for the southern nation nationality and peoples of Ethiopia (SNNPE) region. The target populations of the study consist of Wolkite University instructors currently on work at Main campus. Wolkite University has 1 School and 7 colleges. Generally, there are 676 instructors in Wolkite University main campus (Wolkite University Human Resource Department, 2016). The study was conducted by using structured questionnaires which is distributed to those instructors randomly selected as a sample for the research. We applied the stratified random sampling, since in Wolkite University there are many instructors and there was homogeneity within the same education level and heterogeneity with in different level of education. Thus, the nature of our target population forced us to use it and in order to increase the precision of our findings.   Since there is no previous study result, so we decided to conduct pilot survey in order to determine the actual sample size ==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.

Variables of the Study

Dependent variable

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



Job satisfaction of respondents














Educational level of respondents


















































Motivation of respondents






























Expectation of respondents






















R/n ship with


































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






S. E









95% CI for Exp(β)



Edu level








Enviro eff (1)













































































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 [o3x1+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.

Conclusion and discussion

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.


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, Gostivar46.

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 health12(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 Research9(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 Journal30(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.