Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Factors Associated with Work Satisfaction of Faculty Members in Professional Education: A Cross-Sectional Study

Saloni Desai

Associate Professor,

Bharati Vidyapeeth’s Institute of

Management Studies & Research,

CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai

Corresponding Author

Sree Pavani. V

Assistant Professor,

Birla School of Management,

Birla Global University,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Irva V. Kabulova

Associate Professor,

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

North Ossetia State medical academy,

Vladikavkaz, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-0303-931X

akusherstvo_1@mail.ru

Venkata Naga Siva Kumar Challa

Assistant Professor,

KL Business School,

Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,

Vaddeswaram, Green Fields, India

1. S. Kamalaveni

Associate Professor,

Department of Management Studies,

Sona College of Technology,

Salem, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract

Purpose: Job satisfaction is an important determinant of teaching effectiveness, institutional performance, and faculty retention in professional education. This study aims to identify the factors influencing job satisfaction among faculty members and evaluate their level of satisfaction.

Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,260 faculty members working in professional education institutions in rural and semi-urban areas. Data were collected using a structured Likert-scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic regression analysis were used for data analysis.

Findings: The findings indicate that a majority of faculty members were dissatisfied with key job dimensions, particularly work environment, remuneration, and leave policies. Satisfaction levels showed minimal variation across demographic groups, suggesting systemic institutional issues.

Practical Implications: The study highlights the need for reforms in professional education institutions, including improved infrastructure, better compensation, and enhanced professional development opportunities.

Originality/Value: This study contributes to understanding faculty job satisfaction in professional education and its implications for institutional effectiveness.

Keywords: Faculty satisfaction, professional education, job satisfaction, higher education, workforce development

Introduction

The quality of professional education is largely dependent on the competence, motivation, and satisfaction of faculty members (Hung, 2020). In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on improving higher education systems to meet increasing societal and economic demands (Luthra et al., 2023). Faculty members play a central role in shaping students’ knowledge, skills, and professional competencies, making their work satisfaction a critical component of educational effectiveness (Bland et al., 2005).

Professional education in India, including fields such as engineering, management, medicine, and other specialized disciplines, has expanded significantly over the past decades (AISHE, 2022). The data presented in Figure 1 indicate a substantial expansion of higher education in India from 1950–51 to 2021–22. The number of universities increased from 32 to 1,162, while colleges grew from 695 to over 42,000. Student enrolment also rose sharply from 173,696 to about 4.33 crore, reflecting increased access and participation in higher education (AISHE, 2024; UGC, 2010). The rapid growth observed after 2000 can be attributed to policy support and expansion initiatives. The introduction of the All India Survey on Higher Education improved data coverage and reporting accuracy (AISHE, 2024). However, data for 2020–21 should be interpreted cautiously due to methodological changes and the impact of COVID-19 (Ministry of Education, 2024). Overall, while the trend highlights substantial quantitative growth, it also raises concerns regarding quality, infrastructure, and the availability of qualified faculty.

Figure 1. Growth of Higher Education Institutions and Student Enrolment in India (2019–20 to 2021–22).

This expansion has led to increased expectations from faculty members in terms of teaching, research, administrative responsibilities, and student mentoring. However, the rapid growth of institutions has also created challenges related to infrastructure, workload, job security, and career progression, which may influence faculty satisfaction (Tilak, 2015; Gautam et al., 2020). Work satisfaction among faculty members is an essential determinant of their productivity, teaching quality, institutional commitment, and retention (Singh et al., 2023; Dangan, 2025). Satisfied faculty members are more likely to engage in innovative teaching practices, contribute to research, and foster a positive learning environment (Viloria et al., 2025). Conversely, low levels of satisfaction can lead to stress, burnout, reduced efficiency, and higher turnover rates, ultimately affecting the quality of education (Mishra et al., 2025; Tiwari et al., 2025).

Various factors contribute to faculty work satisfaction, including organizational support, salary and incentives, workload distribution, opportunities for professional development, leadership, and work-life balance (Mather & Bam, 2025; AlMarzooqi et al., 2025). In many professional institutions, inadequate infrastructure, lack of administrative support, limited research opportunities, and unclear promotion policies have been reported as key concerns affecting faculty morale (Kulal et al., 2024; Agarwal et al., 2024). In addition, faculty members often face occupational stress due to increasing academic pressures, performance evaluations, and the need to balance multiple roles (Rao et al., 2025). These challenges highlight the importance of institutional policies that support faculty well-being and professional growth. Creating a supportive work environment, recognizing faculty contributions, and ensuring fair compensation are essential strategies for improving work satisfaction (Aswathy & Jayalakshmi, 2024; Dewangan & Goswami, 2025). Despite these insights, there remains a lack of comprehensive, region-specific empirical studies examining these factors collectively in the Indian context. This study identifies the key factors associated with work satisfaction among faculty members in professional education institutions in Haryana and Rajasthan, India.

Research Gap

At present, limited research has comprehensively analyzed the work satisfaction of faculty members in India, particularly in the states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Existing studies are either fragmented or lack a region-specific focus. Therefore, this study aims to examine the work satisfaction levels of faculty members in these regions.

Research Objectives

1. To identify the factors associated with the work satisfaction of faculty members working in professional education institutions in Haryana and Rajasthan, India.
2. To evaluate the level of work satisfaction based on these factors using cross-sectional statistical analysis techniques.
3. To provide valuable suggestions for improving work satisfaction among faculty members in these regions.

Literature Review

Work satisfaction among faculty members in professional education has been widely studied. Multiple institutional, organizational, and individual factors influence satisfaction levels. Sabbagh et al. (2025) highlighted the importance of knowledge sharing in higher education, showing that it promotes idea exchange and enhances faculty outcomes. Sharma et al. (2026) examined servant leadership and found that it significantly improves job satisfaction and work engagement, with job satisfaction acting as a key mediator, particularly in public institutions. Soni and Kothari (2025) reported disparities in job satisfaction across faculty ranks, with professors showing the highest satisfaction and guest faculty the lowest due to job insecurity, low pay, and heavy workloads. Similarly, C et al. (2025) emphasized the role of work–life balance, identifying it as a significant predictor of job satisfaction, while the work environment showed minimal influence.

Further, Malik (2025) demonstrated that job stress is a major contributor to burnout, whereas job satisfaction and work engagement help reduce burnout levels, highlighting the need for supportive work conditions. In addition, Mather and Bam (2025) identified key determinants of faculty satisfaction and retention, including professional development opportunities, supportive work environments, work–life balance, and equitable compensation. Overall, the literature indicates that faculty work satisfaction is shaped by leadership practices, organizational support, fairness, work–life balance, and psychological well-being. However, there remains a need for integrated studies that examine these factors collectively within professional education contexts.

Research Methodology

Research Design

Job satisfaction among faculty members was evaluated using descriptive research methods. The research design adopted for this study was cross-sectional. A structured questionnaire was administered to 1,260 faculty members working in professional educational institutions in rural and semi-urban areas of Haryana and Rajasthan, India. Only those who had more than two years of experience in their respective institutions were included in the study.

Research Participants

For this research work, participants were randomly selected from faculty members working in professional educational institutions who were willing to participate in the survey. Only those who had worked in the same institution for more than two years were included in the study. The sample population was heterogeneous, comprising individuals from different age groups, educational levels, family backgrounds, castes, income levels, and workplace settings. This is a sample-based study that primarily examines the factors influencing faculty members' work satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Sample Size and Data Collection

This study is based on primary data. The data were collected using a standardized questionnaire, which was pretested through a pilot study on 100 respondents. A total of 1,347 participants took part in the study; however, 87 responses were excluded from the final analysis due to incompleteness and the presence of outliers. Thus, the final sample size considered for the study was 1,260 respondents. The survey was conducted by administering questionnaires through both online and personal interview modes.

Measurement Instruments

A structured questionnaire was developed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to measure the level of work satisfaction among faculty members. The instrument included questions related to socio-economic and demographic characteristics, along with various dimensions of job satisfaction. Prior to the main survey, the questionnaire was pilot-tested to assess the clarity, sequencing of questions, and time required for completion. The major factors influencing work satisfaction were identified through an extensive review of relevant literature. These factors included remuneration and benefits, work environment, management practices, nature of work, relationships between superiors and subordinates, opportunities for promotion, leave provisions, performance appraisal systems, social aspects, participation in decision-making, and availability of training facilities. For the purpose of analysis, respondents scoring below the average level were categorized as “dissatisfied,” whereas those scoring at or above the average were considered “satisfied” (Table 1).

Table 1. Labels of job satisfaction.

Sources: Author’s calculated parameters

Statistical Analysis Tools

After data collection and coding, the dataset was entered into IBM SPSS Statistics for analysis. Descriptive statistical techniques were employed to summarize the data, and the results were presented using frequency tables and percentages. To examine the factors associated with job satisfaction, multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed while controlling for potential confounding variables. The crude odds ratio (COR) was initially used to assess the relationship between independent variables and respondents’ job satisfaction. Subsequently, adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals were computed to determine the strength of association between dependent and independent variables after adjusting for confounders. Statistical significance was considered at a p-value of 0.05 or less.

Results

Measurement of work satisfaction

The survey responses revealed that the majority of faculty members at professional education institutions were not satisfied with various aspects of their jobs (Table 2). A high level of dissatisfaction was observed across multiple parameters. Faculty members reported the highest level of dissatisfaction with perks and remuneration (25.23% very dissatisfied), followed closely by annual leave provisions (25.07%) and participation in institutional decision-making (23.65%). On the other hand, only a very small proportion of respondents expressed high satisfaction, with 3.2% very satisfied with remuneration, 3.33% with leave facilities, and 5.15% with participation in management.

In terms of faculty–administration relationships, only 9.28% of respondents were very satisfied, whereas a substantial proportion reported dissatisfaction (30.95%) and very dissatisfaction (19.44%). Similarly, limited satisfaction was observed regarding promotional opportunities (8.01%) and training facilities (7.77%). The working environment emerged as the most critical concern, with 54.60% of faculty members reporting dissatisfaction, representing the highest level among all factors. Overall, the findings indicate a widespread sense of dissatisfaction among faculty members across institutional and organizational dimensions.

Table 2. Work satisfaction of faculty members across different factors

Sources: Participant’s Responses

Job satisfaction across demographic categories

The analysis of job satisfaction across demographic variables (Table 3) revealed that mean scores ranged from 2.44 to 2.89, indicating an overall moderate to low level of satisfaction among faculty members. No substantial variation was observed across categories such as education level, place of work, income, service length, and social category, suggesting that dissatisfaction is widespread and not confined to any specific group.

Table 3. Mean scores of work satisfaction across demographic categories.

Sources: Participant’s Responses

Logistic regression analysis

The multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 4) demonstrated that education level, place of work, income, service length, and social category significantly influenced job satisfaction. Faculty members with postgraduate qualifications (AOR: 1.68) were more likely to be satisfied compared to undergraduates, while diploma holders were less likely (AOR: 0.62). Faculty working in semi-urban institutions (AOR: 2.03) showed higher satisfaction compared to rural counterparts. Higher income levels were positively associated with satisfaction, and faculty with more than 7 years of experience (AOR: 1.94) exhibited greater satisfaction. Additionally, respondents from OBC categories (AOR: 1.93) were more likely to report satisfaction compared to other groups.

Table 4. Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting job satisfaction.

Sources: Author’s calculation

Note: *P value less than 0.05

Correlation analysis

The Pearson correlation coefficient analysis (Table 5) indicates that overall job satisfaction is significantly associated with all dimensions of work satisfaction. The correlations are positive and moderate in strength, suggesting that improvements in any of these dimensions are likely to enhance overall job satisfaction among faculty members. Among the various factors, the faculty–administration (superior–subordinate) relationship exhibits the strongest correlation with overall job satisfaction (r = 0.654), underscoring its critical importance in shaping faculty perceptions. This is followed by the nature of work (r = 0.631) and management style (r = 0.604), both of which also demonstrate strong positive associations.

Table 5. Correlation matrix of job satisfaction factors

Sources: Author’s calculation

Other dimensions such as perks and remuneration, work environment, promotional opportunities, and annual leave show moderate positive correlations with overall satisfaction. Additionally, performance measurement criteria, social aspects, participation in management, and training facilities are positively correlated, though with relatively lower strength. Overall, the findings highlight that both organizational and interpersonal factors play a significant role in influencing faculty job satisfaction.

Discussion

The findings of this study show a low level of work satisfaction among faculty members in professional education institutions. A large proportion of respondents reported dissatisfaction across key areas. For example, 63.40% of faculty were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with remuneration. Similarly, 63.40% reported dissatisfaction with annual leave. The highest dissatisfaction was observed in the work environment, where 71.90% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction. Participation in management also showed high dissatisfaction (53.57%). In contrast, only a very small proportion reported high satisfaction, such as 3.2% for remuneration and 3.33% for leave. These results clearly indicate widespread dissatisfaction.

The demographic analysis shows a consistent pattern. Mean scores ranged from 2.44 to 2.89, indicating low to moderate satisfaction across all groups. This suggests that dissatisfaction is not limited to any specific category. However, regression results provide important insights. Faculty with postgraduate qualifications were more likely to be satisfied (AOR: 1.68). Those working in semi-urban areas showed higher satisfaction (AOR: 2.03). Higher income levels also increased satisfaction (AOR: 2.33 and 1.96). Faculty with more than 7 years of experience had higher satisfaction (AOR: 1.94). These results highlight the importance of education, income, and experience.

The correlation analysis confirms the multidimensional nature of job satisfaction. Faculty–administration relationships showed the strongest association (r = 0.654). Nature of work (r = 0.631) and management style (r = 0.604) also showed strong relationships. Other factors such as remuneration (r = 0.588), work environment (r = 0.567), and promotion (r = 0.574) had moderate effects. These values indicate that both interpersonal and organizational factors are important.

These findings are consistent with previous studies. Sabbagh et al. (2025) emphasized the role of collaboration and knowledge sharing, which aligns with the importance of faculty–administration relationships observed in this study. Sharma et al. (2026) highlighted the role of leadership, supporting the significance of management style in shaping job satisfaction. The dissatisfaction related to pay and workload is similar to the findings of Soni and Kothari (2025), who reported lower satisfaction among faculty facing job insecurity and heavy workloads. The importance of work–life balance identified by C et al. (2025) also supports the present results, particularly in relation to workload and leave-related concerns.

Further, Malik (2025) found that job stress increases burnout, while job satisfaction reduces it. Similarly, Kim et al. (2023) showed that workload and work–family conflict increase stress, which negatively affects satisfaction. These findings align with the present study, where poor working conditions may contribute to stress. The role of institutional support is also evident. Alam (2022) reported that HR practices such as training, appraisal, and pay improve job satisfaction and performance. This supports the importance of institutional support observed in the present study. In addition, broader evidence supports these findings. Mather and Bam (2025) highlighted the importance of professional development, supportive work environments, and fair compensation. Similarly, Olaniran et al. (2021) emphasized manageable workload, fair remuneration, and supportive relationships as key drivers of satisfaction.

Conclusion

This study examined the factors influencing job satisfaction among faculty members in professional education institutions located in rural and semi-urban areas. The results indicate that faculty members experience moderate to low levels of job satisfaction across most dimensions, with no significant variation across demographic groups. This suggests that dissatisfaction is widespread and systemic rather than limited to specific categories. Among the identified factors, the faculty–administration relationship emerged as the most influential determinant of job satisfaction. Additionally, factors such as work environment, remuneration, leave policies, and participation in decision-making were found to significantly affect satisfaction levels. Although demographic variables such as higher education level, income, experience, and semi-urban work settings showed relatively higher satisfaction levels, these differences were not substantial enough to offset the overall dissatisfaction. The findings emphasize the need for institutional reforms to create a supportive and motivating work environment for faculty members. Improving faculty satisfaction is essential not only for employee well-being but also for enhancing teaching quality, student outcomes, and institutional effectiveness.

Limitations and Future Scope

While this study provides important insights into faculty job satisfaction, it is subject to certain limitations. First, the study focuses only on faculty members in professional education institutions, thereby excluding other academic and administrative staff. Second, the geographical scope is limited to rural and semi-urban institutions, and does not include urban institutions, which may have different working conditions. Third, the study is confined to specific regions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other parts of the country. Additionally, the study primarily considers selected organizational and demographic factors, while other important aspects such as psychological stress, workload, work-life balance, and institutional culture were not included.

Future research can expand the scope by including urban institutions, comparative regional studies, and longitudinal designs to track changes over time. Further studies may also incorporate additional variables such as mental health, job burnout, digital workload, and organizational commitment to gain a more comprehensive understanding of faculty satisfaction.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for institutional administrators, policymakers, and educational planners. Improving faculty job satisfaction requires a multi-dimensional approach. Institutions should focus on enhancing the work environment by providing adequate infrastructure, resources, and support systems. There is a need to develop fair and competitive compensation structures along with improved leave policies to ensure work-life balance. Strengthening faculty–administration relationships through transparent communication, supportive leadership, and participatory decision-making can significantly improve satisfaction levels. Furthermore, institutions should invest in regular training and professional development programs to enhance faculty competencies and career growth opportunities. Encouraging faculty participation in institutional governance can foster a sense of ownership and motivation. By addressing these areas, institutions can improve not only faculty satisfaction but also teaching effectiveness, student outcomes, and overall institutional performance.

References

Agarwal, P., Upadhyay, R. K., Sharma, A., Chauhan, J., Ahalawat, K., Singh, T., & Lakshmi, B. V. (2024). Workplace ergonomics and its influence on job performance with mediating role of job satisfaction: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Management Practice, 18(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmp.2025.143102

Alam, A. (2022). Impact of University’s Human Resources Practices on Professors’ Occupational Performance: Empirical Evidence from India’s Higher Education Sector. In Palgrave studies in democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for growth (pp. 107–131). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12217-0_6

All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE). (2024). AISHE Report 2021–22. Ministry of Education, Government of India. https://aishe.gov.in/aishe/viewDocument.action?documentId=356

AlMarzooqi, A., Hanach, N., Hijazi, H., Rashed, E., AlKetbi, M., AlMarzouqi, A., & Alameddine, M. (2025). Factors influencing job satisfaction among public-sector employees in the united arab emirates: a cross-sectional study. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 22294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-98696-4

Aswathy, S. A., & Jayalakshmi, G. (2024). Role of institutional support in enhancing faculty job satisfaction and performance. In Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series (pp. 197–218). https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-1137-1.ch010

Bland, C. J., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006

C, P., V., & Pasupathi, G. (2025). Exploring the Influence of Work-Life Balance and Work Environment on Job Satisfaction among College Teachers. Public Organization Review, 25(2), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-024-00807-8

Dangan, S. (2025). Determinants of Commitment and Job Satisfaction among Faculty in Higher Education. JPAIR Institutional Research, 25(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.7719/irj.v25i1.971

Dewangan, R. L., & Goswami, T. (2025). Organizational role stress, quality of work life, organizational citizenship behavior, and psychological well-being among university faculty members. BMC Psychology, 13(1), 538. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02883-x

Gautam, M., Kaur, S., & Sharma, P. (2020). Job satisfaction of faculty members in Indian universities. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 9(4), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.904.103

Hung, L. N. Q. (2020). Teachers’ motivation and its influence on quality education: A study at a center for foreign languages in Vietnam. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jen.2020.020

Kim, L., Pongsakornrungsilp, P., Pongsakornrungsilp, S., Horam, N., & Kumar, V. (2023). Key Determinants of Job Satisfaction among University Lecturers. Social Sciences, 12(3), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030153

Kulal, A., N, A., Dinesh, S., Bhat, D. C., & Girish, A. (2024). Evaluating the Promise and Pitfalls of India’s National Education Policy 2020: Insights from the Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Experts. SAGE Open, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241279367

Luthra, A., Dixit, S., & Arya, V. (2023). Evaluating the impact of faculty development on employee engagement practices in higher education: analysing the mediating role of professional development. The Learning Organization, 31(4), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-01-2023-0014

Malik, A. (2025). Impact of job stress, work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on job burnout: A study of academicians in private universities. International Review of Management and Marketing, 15(5), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.18452

Mather, M. F., & Bam, N. E. (2025). Factors influencing academic staff satisfaction and retention in Higher Education: a literature review. European Journal of Education, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70025

Ministry of Education. (2024). Educational Statistics at a Glance. Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/ESAG-2024.pdf

Mishra, A., Mohanty, A., & Sundaray, B. K. (2025). Can faculty job satisfaction reduce turnover intentions at management institutes in India? Analysing the mediation effect of organisational commitment. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-06-2024-0296

Olaniran, A., Madaj, B., Bar‐Zeev, S., Banke‐Thomas, A., & Van Den Broek, N. (2021). Factors influencing motivation and job satisfaction of community health workers in Africa and Asia—A multi‐country study. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 37(1), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3319

Rao, T. N., Rajani, S., & Ravi, J. (2025). A study on occupational stress among faculty in higher educational institutions in northern coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Management and Humanities, 12(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijmh.a1836.12010925

Sabbagh, M. A., Lawati, E. A., & Elgeddawy, M. (2025). Knowledge sharing and employee intention in higher education. In Studies in systems, decision and control (pp. 587–596). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-92240-4_54

Sharma, V., Poulose, J., Bhattacharjee, S., & Chandran, J. (2026). Enhancing faculty engagement through servant leadership: evidence from Indian higher education institutions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-06-2025-0499

Singh, R., Singh, G., Kumar, K., Khatri, S., & Malik, A. (2023). Determinants of job satisfaction among faculty members of a veterinary university in India: an empirical study. Current Psychology, 43(8), 7235–7245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04902-9

Soni, A. K., & Kothari, S. (2025). Work related issues and job satisfaction among of government higher education faculties. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 20(1), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v20i1.22945

Tilak, J. B. (2015). How inclusive is higher education in India? Social Change, 45(2), 185–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085715574178

Tiwari, N., Singh, S. P., Choudhury, N. P., & Gohain, K. (2025). Faculty Well Being and Productivity through Effective Work Life Balance Practices. In Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research (pp. 847–861). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-533-1_50

University Grants Commission (UGC). (2010). Higher Education in India: Annual Report. Government of India. https://www.ugc.gov.in/oldpdf/pub/annualreport/annualreport_2010.pdf

Viloria, V. A., Blas, R. P., Torres, M. V., & Aduna, R. R. (2025). Job Satisfaction Determinants among Faculty Members: A Comprehensive analysis of College of Management and Business Technology. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Management and Science, 11(2), 011–016. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.112.2